DANGEROUS UNCERTAINTY AHEAD OF
VENEZUELA’S ELECTIONS
Latin America Report N°42 – 26 June 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. i
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. THE CONTENDERS ........................................................................................................ 1 A. CHÁVEZ AND CHAVISMO .............................................................................................................1 1. The president’s illness..................................................................................................................1 2. Hints of succession struggles .......................................................................................................2 3. Unease in the PSUV.....................................................................................................................3 4. Popular perceptions ......................................................................................................................4 5. The Chavista campaign ................................................................................................................4 B. CAPRILES AND THE UNITED OPPOSITION .....................................................................................5 1. The learning curve .......................................................................................................................5 2. The primaries ...............................................................................................................................7 3. The Capriles campaign ................................................................................................................8 III. FREE AND UNFAIR ELECTIONS? ............................................................................ 10 A. THE ELECTORAL AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................10 B. FEARS OF FRAUD .......................................................................................................................12 1. Automated voting …..................................................................................................................12 2. … artisan rigging?......................................................................................................................13 C. SCRUTINY ..................................................................................................................................13 D. VENTAJISMO AND A SKEWED CAMPAIGN ....................................................................................15 1. The media ..................................................................................................................................15 2. Public resources .........................................................................................................................16 IV. RISKS AHEAD ................................................................................................................ 17 A. THE RISK OF VIOLENCE .............................................................................................................18 1. A polarised and violent society ..................................................................................................18 2. Sparks of Campaign Violence....................................................................................................20 B. THE RISK OF POSTPONEMENT ....................................................................................................20 C. ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS .........................................................................................................21 1. Chavismo ...................................................................................................................................21 2. The opposition ...........................................................................................................................23 D. THE MILITARY’S ROLE ..............................................................................................................23 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 25 APPENDICES
A. MAP OF VENEZUELA ........................................................................................................................26
B. ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP ....................................................................................27
C. CRISIS GROUP REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS ON LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN SINCE 2009 .....28
D. CRISIS GROUP BOARD OF TRUSTEES ................................................................................................29
Latin America Report N°42
26 June 2012
DANGEROUS UNCERTAINTY AHEAD OF
VENEZUELA’S ELECTIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Uncertainty over President Hugo Chávez’s health adds to
Venezuela’s fragility in the run-up to October’s presidential
election. Amid deep polarisation, his illness overshadows
the campaign, while the personalised nature of his rule,
weakened institutions, and high levels of criminal violence
bode ill for stability even beyond the polls. Brazen violation of the constitution would probably require army support, which not even the president can bank on; regional
powers, too, would eye such action warily. But with much
at stake, upheaval, even a violent political crisis, remain
dangerous possibilities. Political leaders should condemn
violence and pledge publicly to respect the constitution –
whatever lies ahead. Venezuela’s partners in the region
should press for international observation and signal clearly they will not condone unconstitutional acts.
The coming months could prove to be Hugo Chávez’s
toughest yet. The opposition is united behind a presidential candidate. Its youthful contender, Henrique Capriles –
like Chávez – has never lost an election. His moderation,
a far cry from opposition tactics of the past, should resonate with swing voters. Moreover, elections in Venezuela,
despite Chávez’s narrowing of political space, are not easy
to rig. The opposition has won before and in the most recent, the 2010 parliamentary elections, its share of the
popular vote matched that of the ruling party.
But a presidential contest against Chávez is a different
matter. Under normal conditions, he would likely win. He
is a formidable campaigner and still enjoys strong emotional ties to many Venezuelans, especially his poor base.
He also has loyal institutions and a powerful state media
machine, and openly uses the public purse for campaign
purposes, notably by dispensing largesse through social welfare programs. Even opposition loyalists admit a healthy
Chávez in full campaign swing would be almost unbeatable.
However, the president faces not only Capriles, but also
cancer, which could pose a graver threat to his reign. Only
his doctors and close family know the prognosis, but the
illness has already required extended absences for treatments in Cuba and has thus far kept him off the campaign
trail. The ruling party, with no clear succession mecha-
nism or obvious heir – certainly none that could easily
defeat Capriles – is jittery: Chavismo would be in trouble
without Chávez. Many around him have much to lose,
and while the party maintains public unity, speculation
about infighting and jostling for influence behind the
scenes is rife. The recently-appointed Council of State, a
body of top presidential advisers, could possibly become
a mechanism through which to negotiate succession if
Chávez’s health fails, but its creation does not appear to
have calmed nerves.
The president’s sickness threatens not only his party but
also October’s vote and even the country’s stability. His
rule is highly personalised, with power concentrated in
his office and checks and balances steadily eroded. Institutions are ill-equipped to manage a transition or contain
conflict. Politics are polarised, society divided. The proliferation of weapons and of pro-government armed groups
offers opportunities for stoking violence. Indeed, sparks
have already hit the campaign; shots were fired at an opposition rally in Cotiza, a Caracas suburb in early March.
The president’s fiery rhetoric does little to discourage such
incidents.
Many in Venezuela, including in the Capriles camp, stress
a major breakdown of order is unlikely. Chávez has always rooted his legitimacy in the ballot box and promises
to accept the result in October. The electoral authorities
are, perhaps, more resistant to his meddling than other
institutions. The opposition swears there will be no witch
hunts if it wins; if it loses, it appears to have little stomach for a fight, particularly if the vote is clean. Many citizens are tired of confrontation. While senior generals are
loyal to the president, with the defence minister suspected
of ties to drug-trafficking, the armed forces’ middle and
lower ranks would not necessarily follow them into blatant
violations of the constitution. Nor would regional powers
condone a power grab or welcome Venezuela’s slide from
flawed democracy into turmoil or dictatorship.
But Chávez’s illness takes Venezuela onto unknown – and
unpredictable – terrain. At stake is not only his rule but
also a model of governance that many Venezuelans per-
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
Page ii
ceive to serve their interests. One scenario, were the president or a late stand-in defeated, would see the ruling party
seek to force the electoral authorities to suppress results
or itself stir up violence as a pretext to retain power by
extraordinary means. A second, especially if the president’s
health should decline rapidly, would have it delay the
vote – perhaps through a decision by the partisan judiciary – in order to buy time to select and drum up support
for a replacement. Either scenario could stimulate opposition protests and escalating confrontation with government loyalists.
To Venezuela’s Regional Partners, in particular
the Governments of Brazil and Colombia and
of the Bolivarian Alliance for Peoples of Our
America (ALBA) and Regional Bodies, notably
the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR):
The prospect of upheaval thus cannot be discounted. Political leaders, especially the president, should tone down
their rhetoric and condemn any violence. Venezuela’s
constitution, passed by Chávez himself, provides for all
contingencies, and all political leaders, authorities and the
armed forces should pledge publicly to adhere to it.
To Venezuelan Political Leaders including
President Chávez and Henrique Capriles:
RECOMMENDATIONS
6. Commit, publicly and privately, to constitutional order
in Venezuela and press President Chávez and Henrique
Capriles to respect the constitution and electoral results.
To diminish polarisation and the risk of violence
7. Avoid divisive and inflammatory language, in particular degrading portrayals of political opponents; pledge
publicly, forcefully and frequently to renounce electoral
violence around elections; call upon supporters to abstain from violence; and insist that candidates be permitted to campaign throughout the country without
personal risk.
To reduce the dangerous levels of uncertainty
in advance of the presidential election
To the Electoral Authorities:
To the Government of President Chávez,
the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela
and the Armed Forces:
8. Enforce the electoral law and their own regulations
that prohibit divisive and inflammatory language by
politicians, including by fining violators.
1. Pledge publicly to respect the constitution, including
its provisions governing how Venezuela would be
ruled were the president’s illness to force him to stand
down, the electoral calendar and the electoral results.
To the Venezuelan Government and Law
Enforcement Institutions:
2. Provide details on the president’s health and prognosis.
9. Hold perpetrators accountable for any violent acts they
commit.
3. Clarify internal procedures for determining a new party
leader and presidential candidate should the president’s
health so require.
To level the playing field and increase the
likelihood of free and fair elections in October
4. Maintain affiliation to the Inter-American Human Rights
system, including recognition of the competence of
the Inter-American Commission and Court on Human
Rights, and publicly commit to the standards of the
Inter-American Democratic Charter.
To the Electoral Authorities (the Consejo
Nacional Electoral, CNE):
5. Disseminate widely the provisions in the electoral
law that govern how political parties substitute candidates (notably Articles 62-64) and commit to holding
elections on 7 October 2012.
To President Chávez, the Venezuelan
Government and State Governors:
10. De-link current social welfare programs from the campaign, including by avoiding any inauguration of them
by candidates or senior government officials; cease
mandatory broadcasts and refrain from inaugurating
public works during the campaign.
To the Electoral Authorities:
11. Comply with the requirements in the electoral law to
check the use of state resources for campaigning, including sanctioning those violating the law.
12. Invite quickly international observers, ideally from organisations like the European Union, the Carter Center
and, the Organisation of American States, to observe
all aspects of the October election, including the campaign and dispute resolution. An invitation should be
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
also extended to the Inter-American Union of Electoral
Organisms (UNIORE) through its technical support
unit, the Centre for Electoral Assistance and Promotion
(CAPEL).
13. Accredit opposition agents promptly; facilitate their
access to all parts of the electoral process; and remove
restrictions on the number of civil society observers
from any single organisation.
14. Disseminate rules regulating the electoral security plan
(Plan República) and develop, together with the armed
forces, a code of conduct for signature by those involved
in it.
To the Armed Forces:
15. Ensure all responsible for securing polling stations
are properly trained and understand the code of conduct and their mandate; and protect all voters equally
during the election.
Caracas/Bogotá/Brussels, 26 June 2012
Page iii
Latin America Report N°42
26 June 2012
DANGEROUS UNCERTAINTY AHEAD OF
VENEZUELA’S ELECTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE CONTENDERS
Venezuelans are scheduled to go to the polls on 7 October
to elect a president, with the winner of a single round of
voting to assume office in January 2013.1 The contest is
expected to pit incumbent President Hugo Chávez Frías
against Henrique Capriles Radonski, the candidate of a
united opposition ticket. The campaign officially starts on
1 July. Uncertainty, however, clouds preparations. Over
the past year, Chávez has been battling cancer and forced
to spend protracted periods abroad, fuelling intense speculation about what his potential absence could mean for
both October’s vote and the country’s stability. During
his time in office, power and decision-making have been
steadily accumulated in the executive branch and key
institutions filled with loyalists, leaving the country illprepared for a transition. Many Venezuelans express apprehension about what would happen if the president’s
health deteriorated.
On 11 June President Chávez registered his candidacy
with the electoral authorities. He seeks another term, as
constitutional reforms approved by a 2009 referendum
permit, despite his struggle against a cancer diagnosed
almost a year ago. His illness has unsettled the ruling party and also looks likely to limit his campaign and force
him to rely heavily on the disciplined mobilisation of party activists and massive, oil revenue-funded social spending. His principle challenger, Henrique Capriles, registered
the day before Chávez. He has the backing of a united
opposition, served the last four years as governor of Miranda state, represents a moderate strand of opposition
thinking and has been travelling extensively around the
country, publicising policies that include retention of Chávez’s social welfare programs. Thus far, however, much
media attention has focused on the president’s health.2
This report examines the contenders’ camps and the electoral playing field. It explores the risks of a potentially
violent crisis, although the lack of reliable information
about the president’s health, as well as the opacity of the
inner workings of both his government and the military,
complicates making predictions for the months ahead. It
is based on interviews with interlocutors across the political and social spectrum in Caracas, including 23 de Enero
and other poor neighbourhoods, and abroad. Most, and
especially the few ruling party members and sympathisers
with whom it was possible to meet, spoke on condition of
anonymity. Requests to meet senior government officials
were declined.
A. CHÁVEZ AND CHAVISMO
1. The president’s illness
Chávez first announced his cancer in June 2011, after an
operation in Cuba to remove a “baseball-size” abscess in
his pelvic area.3 He spent several weeks between June and
September undergoing treatment on the island, largely
absent from public view. In February 2012, having initially
proclaimed the cancer beaten, he revealed the discovery
of another “lesion” – later acknowledged as a cancerous
tumour – and returned to Cuba for further surgery and
treatment.4 His most recent treatment, in May, took him
out of the country for eleven days.
2
1
President Chávez’s term ends on 10 January 2013. Regional
elections to fill 23 state governorships are scheduled to be held
on 16 December 2012 and municipal elections for 335 mayoralties on 14 April 2013. For previous reporting on Venezuela,
see Crisis Group Latin America Report N°38, Violence and
Politics in Venezuela, 17 August 2011; and Latin America Briefing N°22, Venezuela: Accelerating the Bolivarian Revolution, 5
November 2009.
Candidates for the presidential election were required to register with the Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE) between 1 June
and 13 June 2012. See “Cronograma Eleccción Presidencial –
Domingo 7 de Octubre 2012”, at www.cne.gob.ve. In addition
to Chávez and Capriles, additional six candidates registered.
3
See, for example, “Chávez podría recibir quimioterapia para
tratar el cáncer”, El Nuevo Herald,14 July 2011; and “Hugo
Chávez deja su lema de guerra por uno más apegado a la vida”,
CNN México, 15 July 2011.
4
“Chavez: no more cancer”, Correo del Orinoco International,
21 October 2011; “Raúl Castro recibió a Chávez a su vuelta a
Cuba para seguir tratamiento”, EFE news agency, 8 April 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
The president has provided no details on the type of his
cancer, his prognosis or the duration or nature of treatment. Since returning from his latest treatment, he has
been mostly out of public view, fuelling speculation the
illness is worse than acknowledged, and uncertainty about
what that might mean.5 Reportedly not even close advisers are informed, which some say has caused resentment
in his immediate circle.6 According to the constitution,
the vice president temporarily assumes power if the president is unable to govern.7 But Chávez has delegated none
of his presidential powers, other than some administrative
and budgetary competencies to the vice president and the
finance and planning minister while he was in Cuba. He
and senior officials repeatedly assert his capacity to govern
and intention to seek a third term in October.
The sickness and absences accentuate both the highly
personalised nature of his rule and the lack of an obvious
successor. Even loyalists admit that Chavismo8 will struggle without Chávez, unless the president establishes a clear
succession plan and perhaps even anoints an heir. The
removal of presidential term limits in the 2009 referendum led many members of the ruling United Socialist
Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to assume he would serve at
least another term, stifling discussion within the party on a
post-Chávez era and leaving it ill-prepared for the future.
Page 2
The president’s frailty only months before the election
thus generates deep uneasiness within the PSUV. Members
are careful to maintain a public display of unity behind
his candidacy, and the hierarchy reportedly mutes discussion on succession. Some members claim that the party
is preparing for a scenario in which the president cannot
compete in October;9 indeed a PSUV state governor recently speculated in front of journalists about an election
without him.10 Rumours of factionalism and jockeying for
influence behind the scenes are endemic.
Chávez’s recent appointment of members of the Council
of State (Consejo de Estado),11 defined in the constitution
as the highest body of advisers to the president but never
formed until now, has done little to calm nerves. It is initially tasked with examining Venezuela’s potential withdrawal from the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights.12 Though its members have not yet met, many tout
it as part of a plan for transitioning to a post-Chávez era,
with the council perhaps mediating between factions or
broadening the political base of a potential successor in
order to ensure the survival of Chavismo. The government
insists its appointment of the council members simply fulfils a constitutional requirement.
2. Hints of succession struggles
Chávez understandably avoids public discussion about
who might inherit his mantle, since it would throw his
5
On 30 May, U.S. journalist Dan Rather, following talks with a
“highly respected source close to Chávez”, reported that the
president was suffering from an “aggressive cancer” that had
“entered the end stage”. According to the source, Chávez could
not expect to live “more than a couple of months at most”. Rather
said that he has not been able to confirm this with any other
source. “The Health of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is
‘Dire’”, “Dan Rather Reports”, HDNet, 30 May 2012.
6
A day before Chávez announced the new “lesion”, on 20 February, Communications Minister Andrés Izarra denied rumours
about a possible relapse of the president, showing that close allies either were misinformed or deliberately mislead the public.
“El ministro Izarra desmiente rumores sobre salud de Chávez”,
Notitarde.com, 20 February 2012. The fact that Chávez chose
Cuba for treatment is widely interpreted as a move to protect
the secrecy of information concerning his health.
7
According to the constitution, if the president is unable to
govern due to death or physical incapacity (“absolute absence”)
in the last two years of his mandate, the vice president assumes
office until the end of the term (Article 233). The vice president
can also take over for up to 90 days in the case of temporary
absence. This period can be prolonged for another 90 days by
the National Assembly (Article 234). If the temporary absence
is extended for over 90 consecutive days, the National Assembly must decide by majority vote if it should be considered in
effect permanent.
8
Chavismo refers to a set of ideas and policies and a governing
style that are closely associated with President Chávez. Chavistas are supporters of Chávez.
9
A PSUV official said, “Of course the illness is difficult for the
party. And of course we are preparing for a scenario in which
the president cannot run. This is not so difficult. If it’s not Chávez, if the president is too sick, then another candidate in his
place will represent Chavismo. In that sense, there is no uncertainty …. for the moment Chávez is our candidate, and no one
in the party is speculating in public even on the possibility of
another candidate”. The same official admitted “a change of
candidate could of course impact turnout and lead to greater
abstention”, Crisis Group interview, March 2012.
10
At a recent campaign meeting, the governor of Portuguesa
state, Wilmer Castro Soteldo, reportedly speculated about a
scenario in which Chávez could not contest the election; see,
“Preparan escenarios con Chávez, sin él o suspensión de elecciones”, El Nacional, 25 April 2012.
11
According to Article 252 of the constitution, the Council is
headed by the vice president and includes five members appointed by the president, one by the National Assembly, one by
the Supreme Court and one by the governors. Presidentiallyappointed members are former vice president José Vicente
Rangel, former foreign minister and OAS Ambassador Roy
Chaderton, former ombudsman Germán Mundarín, Admiral
Carlos Giacoppini Martínez and writer Luis Britto García. Its
president, Luisa Estella Morales, represents the Supreme Court
(TSJ), member Earle Herrera the National Assembly and Jorge
Luis García Carneiro, governor of Vargas, the state governors.
12
See, for example, “Diego Ore, new Venezuelan council not
post-Chavez kingmaker”, Reuters, 11 May 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
candidacy into question. Indeed, his actions often appear
designed to sow confusion. He took Foreign Minister
Nicolás Maduro – touted by many in Caracas and abroad
as a likely heir given his profile and close ties to the president and the Cubans – down a notch by appointing him
in December 2011 as the PSUV candidate for governor in
Carabobo, an opposition bastion he has little hope of
winning. In the same month, he appointed Vice President
Elías Jaua, whose position and the administrative powers
he delegated to him from Havana, made him another favourite, as the candidate for governor in Miranda, another
opposition-controlled state. Both Maduro and Jaua, however, remain likely contenders.
The appointment of a close confidante and former military man, Diosdado Cabello, as president of the National
Assembly and PSUV vice president in January 2011 was
broadly interpreted as a move to tighten Chávez’s grip over
the armed forces and the party.13 Cabello is not widely seen
as a viable successor, given his lack of popular support
and backing within the party, as well as alleged wealth
that dampens his appeal to poor voters, the core Chavista
constituency.14 He also lost the 2008 Miranda gubernatorial contest to Capriles as an incumbent.15 But he enjoys
close ties to the armed forces and controls an important
faction in the legislature, so cannot be discounted, particularly if further empowered by the president. At the least,
his accumulation of power makes him influential behind
the scenes.16
Chávez’s elder brother, Adán, current governor of Barinas state, is among other names floated in public and private. Though he has strong revolutionary credentials, his
charisma and popularity are a far cry from those of the
president.17 There are reportedly dark horse candidates,
including potentially even a Chávez daughter, though none
Page 3
would have much claim beyond their connection to the
president.
The constitution permits political parties to switch presidential candidates up to the last minute.18 However, what
the likely response from the disparate political and economic interests within the PSUV would be to a sharp deterioration in the president’s health is unclear, as would
be its capability to select a new leader without fracturing.
Opinion polls suggest that none of those touted to take
over would defeat Capriles.19 Few currently enjoy broad
support even within party ranks, let alone with swing voters. Government loyalists would be unlikely to vote for
Capriles, but they might abstain. Again, however, much
would depend on whether Chávez would be able or willing
to throw his own weight behind a successor, and perhaps,
too, on the opposition’s ability to reach out to disgruntled
Chavistas.
3. Unease in the PSUV
The president’s illness also clouds the futures of other
PSUV figures. Sources within the opposition camp claim
that some are reaching out to secure their careers in the
event of a Capriles win; the opposition itself reportedly is
wooing potential allies.20 The most recent prominent defection was that of José Gregorio “el Gato” Briceño, the
popular Monagas state governor. The water scandal that
officially caused the rupture is seen as the excuse he sought
to jump ship, taking three state deputies with him.21 Already in 2010, another popular governor, Henri Falcón of
Lara state, left the PSUV, alleging too much interference
from Caracas and that the absolute loyalty Chávez demanded stifled debate in the party.22 Falcón and El Gato
may swing support in their respective states toward Ca-
18
13
Ties between Chávez and Cabello stretch back at least two
decades to their joint participation in the coup attempt against
President Carlos Andrés Perez in 1992.
14
Cabello is widely perceived to have become rich during Chávez’s rule. Crisis Group interviews, international and local
journalists, NGO representative, Caracas, 19-23 March 2011,
telephone interview, 27 March 2011.
15
After losing the Miranda election, Cabello was appointed by
Chávez as public works and housing minister. He also heads
the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL).
16
Crisis Group interview, foreign correspondent, Caracas, 21
March 2012.
17
Ibid; Crisis Group interview, NGO representative, Caracas,
20 March 2012. Adán Chávez was quoted in June 2011 declaring that “it would be inexcusable to limit ourselves to only the
electoral and not see other forms of struggle, including the armed
struggle”. See “Chavez brother raises possibility of armed struggle as Venezuela ponders president’s health”, InterAmerican
Security Watch, 27 June 2011; also “Hugo Chavez’s brother talks
of armed struggle”, Associated Press, 27 June 2011.
See section IV.B. below.
A poll published by Consultores 21 in March 2012, and notwithstanding the difficulties of projecting voter intentions in a
contest without Chávez, projected Capriles to win with 49 per
cent of the vote against Jaua (40 per cent), Adán Chávez (40
per cent), Nicolas Maduro (39 per cent) and Diosdado Cabello
(38 per cent). See, “Sondeo ubica a Jaua como buen sustituto
de Chávez”, Ultimas Noticias, 28 March 2012. A Chavista said,
“we don’t like any of the other names. But even so no Chavistas will ever vote for the opposition”. Crisis Group interview,
Caracas, 21 March 2012.
20
Crisis Group interviews, diplomat, foreign correspondent,
Caracas, 23 March 2012.
21
Ibid. Moreover, Briceño had not yet been designated by Chávez as the PSUV candidate for re-election in Monagas state in
the December elections, so did not know whether he would be
on the party ticket.
22
Falcón laid out his difference with Chávez in an open letter
when he split. “La carta que Henri Falcón le escribió a Chávez
para anunciar su salida del PSUV”, Noticias24, 22 February
2010.
19
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
Page 4
priles. Falcón identified a further three governors who he
said were in talks with the opposition, something all three
immediately denied.23
polls have projected narrower margins, though most characterise between 10 and 35 per cent of voters as undecided, or potential abstainers.28
The decision not to hold PSUV primaries for the December 2012 regional elections reportedly caused resentment
at state and local level, with complaints that it prevents
the emergence of fresh blood in the party.24 Whether wary
of competition or of the potential for factionalism, Chávez has reportedly checked the rise of leaders with strong
local backing. PSUV governors, who control fifteen of 23
states, should in principle be useful vehicles for mobilising support for the president, but they are often less popular than Chávez. His appointment of campaign coordinators outside the governor’s office in many states reflects
his distrust both of them and of their ability to contribute
to his re-election.25
Whether poor government performance and chronic insecurity will affect the president’s support is unclear. Paradoxically, many citizens remain pro-Chávez even as their
support for the government wanes – due partly to the president’s charisma and ability to connect emotionally with
Venezuelans and partly to his knack for distancing himself from governance problems.29
4. Popular perceptions
The president’s illness does not appear to have dented his
popularity, however. It may even garner him sympathy
votes: a bounce in his ratings followed the announcement
of his cancer in 2011.26 Moreover, the topic dominates
even the independent media, reducing coverage for the
opposition. Opinion polls in deeply polarised Venezuela
should be treated cautiously, but most suggest Chávez has
a double-digit lead, even after successful primaries that
many expected to boost opposition numbers.27 Only two
23
See “En respuesta a Pérez y Falcón, gobernadores oficialistas
desmienten acercamiento con la MUD”, Noticias24, 28 March
2012. According to an analyst: “Another Gato Briceño would
be fatal to the Chávez campaign”. Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 28 March 2012.
24
President Chávez reportedly did without PSUV primaries in
2012 due to the experience in 2010, when some candidates he
favoured lost to those with local ties. Loyalists who were defeated were then given prominent positions on the party lists for
the proportional contests, which further upset some in the party.
Crisis Group interview, diplomat, Caracas, March 2012. Also
see “Exigen a Chávez primarias para esconder candidatos regionales”, El Universal, 13 March 2012 and “Viene una desbandada”, TalCualDigital, 16 April 2012.
25
Crisis Group interview, journalist, 21 March 2012.
26
Datanálisis poll quoted in http://caracaschronicles.com/2012/
03/29/the-datanalisis-poll-in-full.
27
Almost all recent polls have given the incumbent a significant lead. One, published on 3 June by the Instituto Venezolano
de Análisis de Datos (IVAD), showed Chávez with an estimated 54.8 per cent, compared to 23.6 per cent for Capriles. “Chávez ganaría con 54,8% si elecciones presidenciales fueran hoy”,
Correo del Orinoco, 3 June 2012. Others were similar: 42.9 per
cent for Chávez, 25.7 per cent for Capriles, Datanálisis, “Consulta la encuesta completa de Datanálisis mostrada por Pérez
Pirela”, Informe 21, 16 May 2012; 59.4 per cent for Chávez,
29.1 per cent for Capriles, International Consulting Services
(ICS), “Encuestadora ICS: Intención de voto a favor de Chávez
5. The Chavista campaign
The official campaign starts in July, but both camps have
been active for months. Chávez’s recent absence from
public view suggests he may have difficulty meeting the
demands of the campaign, especially as his electioneering
style usually features many grassroots meetings and long,
impromptu speeches. Disciplined mobilisation by his party and supporters, tied to increased state spending and
complemented by extensive media coverage look set to
compensate.
His illness has not, however, dampened his vigorous rhetoric. When he does speak, he combines lofty appeals for
“love” and “solidarity” with strong attacks on the opposition – Capriles in particular – attacks that his detractors
es de 59.4%”, Correo del Orinoco, 8 June 2012; 57 per cent for
Chávez, 21 per cent for Capriles, Grupo de Investigación social
Siglo XXI (GIS XXI), “Presidente Chávez aventaja en 36 puntos al candidato de la derecha”, Correo del Orinoco, 9 May
2012; 57.3 per cent for Chávez, 25.8 per cent for Capriles, Centro de Medición e Interpretación de Datos Estadísticos (Cemide), “Nueva encuesta revela que Chávez ganaría las elecciones
presidenciales con 66% de los votos”, Correo del Orinoco, 29
April 2012; 53 per cent for Chávez, 34 per cent for Capriles,
Hinterlaces, “Hinterlaces: 53% votaría por Chávez y 34% lo
haría por Capriles”, Noticiero Digital, 23 April 2012
28
Consultores 21 on 22 March showed 46 per cent for Chávez,
45 per cent for Capriles, “Chavez, rival tied ahead in Venezuela
elections, polls show”, Bloomberg, 22 March 2012; a more recent poll published by the JDP put Capriles in the lead for the
first time, with 46.1 per cent to 44.87 per cent, “Encuesta presidencial JDP Consultores: Henrique Capriles 46,13% y Hugo
Chavez 44,87%”, Elecciones Venezuela 2012, 15 May 2012.
The percentage of voters either undecided or not planning to
vote for either is estimated between 21.6 per cent (IVAD, op.
cit.) and 11.5 per cent (ICS, op. cit.). Other surveys put this figure at 31.4 per cent (Datanálisis, op. cit.), 22 per cent (GIS
XXI, op. cit.), 16.9 per cent (Cemide, op. cit.) and 13 per cent
(Hinterlaces, op. cit.). The calculations of undecided voters are
based on the number of voters expressing intention to vote for
either Chávez or Capriles subtracted from total voters.
29
On his television program “Alo Presidente”, the president
often blames his ministers for problems, thus disassociating
himself from them.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
portray as inflammatory and his supporters as either endearing candour or unavoidable reaction to equally personal attacks against him in the private media.30 Even
some Chávez sympathisers, however, recognise that his
abrasiveness may prove counterproductive, especially
when contrasted with the moderate tone adopted by the
Capriles campaign.31 A second feature of the president’s
rhetoric is depiction of the opposition as violent, or a tool
of imperialism, prepared to make a grab for power if they
lose the election.32 Constant references to the failed coup
in 2002 complement this line.
In September 2011, immediately after the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced the date, the PSUV launched
Misión 7 de Octubre, including an array of new social
programs, with the explicit goal of mustering ten million
votes through the deployment of thousands of volunteers
across the country.33 The Misión includes an array of new
social programs. Some estimates put public spending in
the first three months of 2012 at almost 20 per cent above
that of the same period a year earlier.34 Volunteers are explicitly mandated not only to mobilise voters but also to
identify those whose loyalty qualifies them for the governments social programs.35
As early as March, the president established the campaign
headquarters, the “Carabobo Battle Campaign Command”
run by Jorge Rodriguez, a regime stalwart, former election commissioner and now mayor of Libertador munici-
30
In a speech shortly after the primaries, Chávez called Capriles
a “majunche” (low life) and added “you have the tail of a pig,
the ears of a pig, you snore like a pig, you are a pig”, www.
youtube.com/watch?v=E-Z0PlrD2HM. Crisis Group interviews,
Caracas, 19-28 March 2012. See also Section III.D.1 below.
31
Crisis Group interview, analyst sympathetic to the government, Caracas, 23 March 2012.
32
For example, campaign chief Jorge Rodríguez stated that “we
are prepared to confront any destabilisation attempt by the right”.
“Estamos preparados para enfrentar cualquier intento de desestabilizacion de la derecha”, Informe21.com, 15 April 2012.
33
“Misión 7 de Octubre busca 10 millones de votos, Chávez no
acepta menos”, Noticias24, 15 September 2011.
34
“Campaña presidencial de Hugo Chávez seguirá aumentando
el gasto público venezolano”, La República (Colombia), 14
March 2012.
35
The ruling party website states: “La primera etapa del despliegue del PSUV consiste en el abordaje social de los Patrulleros de Vanguardia mediante la aplicación de un instrumento
que permitirá tener un mapa de aquellas personas susceptibles
de ser beneficiadas por las Grandes Misiones de la Revolución
Bolivariana”, which roughly translated, means “the first stage
of the PSUV deployment is social mapping, by the Vanguard
Patrol, which includes identifying those people who are susceptible to benefitting from the major missions of the Bolivarian
Revolution”. See “Voluntarios para la misión 7 de Octubre podrán registrarse en el número 489”, PSUV, 7 February 2012.
Page 5
pality in the Caracas metropolitan district36 Units within
the headquarters include an “anti-coup” command, whose
membership and activities are murky but that appears to
aim at portraying the opposition as destabilising and a
threat to rig or reject the election result.37
Chávez has also revived the Gran Polo Patriótico (GPP) –
an alliance of leftist parties, social movements and other
groups that backed his previous campaigns – although
with fewer political parties as members.38 Reportedly all
organisations that receive government funds – estimated
at some 30,000 – are required to join. The GPP organises
national and regional events and marches in support of
the president and the Bolivarian Revolution.39
B. CAPRILES AND THE UNITED OPPOSITION
1. The learning curve
The opposition has advanced considerably since its attempt to oust Chávez by coup in 2002 and its boycott of
the 2005 polls, moves its dominant strand now recognises
as strategic disasters.40 Today’s Mesa de Unidad Democrática (MUD) is a far cry from what Chávez faced in his
early years in power. Its unity, moderation and focus on
constitutional means of contesting power – notably participating in elections despite an uneven playing field –
appear to be paying dividends, reflected in its improved
performance in numerous elections and referendums over
recent years.
Crucial to the opposition’s gains has been its effort to unify and contest elections on a single ticket with a common
platform. Attempts in the first half of the last decade to
form broad coalitions floundered over divisions between
factions, but before the 2006 presidential election, potential contenders fell in behind Manuel Rosales, whom opinion polls indicated would be the strongest challenger. Over
36
The campaign consists of seven working commissions at national level as well as seven regional, 23 state, 300 municipal,
1,067 district and 11,038 local campaign centres. “Presidente
Chávez designó a integrantes de Comando Campaña Carabobo”, AlbaTV, 23 February 2012.
37
“Preparan escenarios con Chávez, sin él o suspensión de
elecciones”, op. cit.
38
A number of parties have left the GPP over recent years, including PPT and Podemos. See also “El presidente Chávez
anuncia ‘el Gran Polo Patriótico’en busca de su tercera reelección”, Informe 21, 29 September 2011.
39
“Cronograma de encuentros y asambleas patrióticas populares del Gran Polo Patriótico”, Gran Polo Patriótico, without date;
see also http://albatv.org/El-Gran-Polo-Patriotico-debe-ser.html.
40
Crisis Group interviews, opposition allies and members of
the Capriles team, Caracas, 19-28 March 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
40 opposition groups jointly endorsed his candidacy,41 but
his campaign was still hampered by elements that saw their
interests best served by another boycott or even continued
street protests and civil disobedience, and Chávez won
handily.42
The following year the government narrowly lost at the
ballot box for the first time, in a referendum on constitutional reform (Chávez’s first attempt to remove presidential term limits).43 In 2008, the ruling party won the popular vote in regional elections, though by a smaller margin
– 52 per cent to 43 per cent44 – and the opposition picked
up three states, raising its governorships to five including
in Venezuela’s three most populous states.45 Importantly
it contested most gubernatorial and mayoral races on a
unified ticket.46
The MUD was founded in 2009 and developed a broad
platform for the following year’s parliamentary elections.47
The PSUV won 98 of 165 seats, a solid majority but less
Page 6
than the two-thirds required to change organic laws (leyes
orgánicas) or the three-fifths required for enabling laws
(leyes habilitantes).48 The MUD captured 65 and Patria
Para Todos (Fatherland for all, PPT) the remaining two.49
The party list vote, however, told a different story. The
PSUV won 48 per cent, the MUD 47 per cent and the PPT,
which has since joined the MUD, 3 per cent. Thus, although Chavistas took more seats, the opposition received
more votes.50 It also out-polled the ruling party in seven
states, as well as the capital, even defeating PSUV candidates in some traditionally pro-Chávez lower-income areas of Caracas.51 Again it contested most seats on a single
ticket; all candidates also signed up to its platform ahead
of the polls.52
Today’s MUD is composed of 26 parties across a broad
ideological spectrum, including the two traditional puntofijista parties, the social-democratic Acción Democrática (Democratic Action) and Christian-democrat Copei,53
41
Manuel Rosales’ Unidad Nacional – an umbrella group composed, inter alia, of Un Nuevo Tiempo, Primero Justicia, and
Copei (Committee for the Independent Electoral Political Organisation, Comité de Organización Política Electoral Independiente) – was the main challenger, but twelve other minority
candidates also stood. For more on the 2006 presidential election, see Crisis Group Latin America Report N°19, Venezuela: Hugo Chávez’s Revolution, 22 February 2007.
42
Crisis Group interviews, opposition allies, Caracas, 19-28
March 2012. See, for example, Javier Corrales and Michael
Penfold, “Dragon in the Tropics: Hugo Chávez and the Political
Economy of Revolution in Venezuela”, Brookings Institution
Press, 2011. Chávez received 62.84 per cent, Rosales 36.9 per
cent. ”Elección Presidencial – 3 de Diciembre de 2006”, CNE,
29 January 2007.
43
Chávez’s proposal to amend 69 articles of the 1999 Constitution was defeated in the referendum by a margin of 1 per cent.
See “Referendo de la Reforma Constitucional”, CNE, 2 December 2007. Afterwards, Chávez passed many of his proposed
reforms though an enabling law. Two years later, he won a new
constitutional referendum on removal of term limits for all
elected officials, rather than just the president, which received
considerably more backing from local officials.
44
Crisis Group email correspondence, MUD official, 14 June
2012.
45
Among the states now controlled by the opposition are Zulia,
Miranda and Carabobo.
46
According to a MUD activist: “In most places we were united. Where we didn’t unite, it often cost us”. Crisis Group interview, 27 March 2012.
47
“Cien soluciones para la gente”, Unidad Nacional, 22 April
2010. While the MUD in its present form was created in June
2009, its origins go back to January 2008, when opposition parties declared their intention to unite following the December
2007 constitutional referendum. “Candidatos unitarios ya tienen acuerdo de país para campaña”, El Universal, 24 January
2008; “Partidos de oposición conforman Mesa de la Unidad
Democrática”, NoticiasVe, 8 June 2009.
48
According to Article 203 of the constitution, enabling laws
allow the president to legislate on some matters without the National Assembly.
49
See www.cne.gob.ve/divulgacion_parlamentarias_2010.
50
The new electoral law, the Ley Orgánica de Procesos Electorales (LOPE), passed in 2009 ahead of parliamentary polls
the following year, revised the system used to elect the National Assembly. As a result, in 2010, 110 members were chosen
according to first-past-the-post (FPTP) contests in singlemember districts; 52 won their seats on party lists at state level;
three seats were reserved for the indigenous. The law’s most
important reform was “disconnecting” the list elections from
the FPTP elections, in that list seats were no longer used to
compensate for disproportionality in the FPTP contests. Critics
of the new law argue that it skews representation and is unconstitutional, in that Venezuela’s constitution twice mentions explicitly the principle of proportionality for elections. Overall,
the change benefited the ruling party, which won 98 seats (almost 60 per cent) with just under half the votes; it also benefited the opposition in some of its strongholds (for example in Zulia state, where it won 80 per cent of seats with 55 per cent of
the votes). Edgardo Lander, “Quién ganó las elecciones parlamentarios en Venezuela?”, Centro Tricontinental, 6 October
2010. Opposition politicians present the list results as a defeat
for the president personally, given his active campaigning for
PSUV candidates. Many portray all recent elections as plebiscites on his rule. However, a presidential vote is very different
from parliamentary elections, or even earlier referenda, so earlier contests should not be interpreted as precedents for 2012.
51
In each election (excluding the two referendums) since 2006,
the opposition has gained, in both total vote and number of
states in which it has defeated the ruling party.
52
Crisis Group email correspondence, MUD official, 14 June
2012.
53
Puntofijismo refers to the Punto Fijo Pact, which divided
power between the two main parties for decades after 1958. For
Venezuelans it came to symbolise a corrupt political system.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
Capriles’s centrist Primero Justicia (Justice First),54 as well
as the Marxist-Leninist Bandera Roja (Red Flag) and the
rightist Movimiento Republicano (Republican Movement).55 It also includes former members of Chávez’s
GPP: Podemos (We can), whose leaders split with him over
the attempted constitutional revisions in 2007, and PPT,
which officially joined only in May. The MUD’s 175page six-year plan of governance, approved in January
2012 by all but one of the presidential aspirants in its
primaries, aims to demonstrate that its unity would last
beyond the election and into government, should it win.56
Beyond unity, the MUD now stresses its adherence to constitutional rules and competing for power through the ballot box, convictions drawn from the bitter experiences of
the 2002 coup and 2005 boycott, which only entrenched
the Chávez government.57 Its platforms in both 2010 and
2012 have started with an explicit commitment to the
constitution. Opposition leaders have significantly moderated their discourse, again in contrast to earlier tactics
that, by focusing almost exclusively on crippling the government and portraying it and its supporters negatively,
aggravated polarisation.58 The current platform calls for
reconciliation, with a strong focus on social inclusion. It
commits to “maintain the levels of social protection attained by the current government”, while criticising the
“clientelism” and “ideological exclusion” of its programs.59
Whether these trends will last to October or beyond remains to be seen. Despite its development since 2006,
some within the MUD argue that the imperative of beating Chávez is the glue binding the coalition together, and
the president’s withdrawal would place it under considerable strain.60 Even opposition strategists recognise that
54
Primero Justicia emerged in 2000 from an NGO of the same
name advocating for justice reform. Its current leader is not
Capriles but the 2006 presidential candidate, Julio Borges, who
eventually backed Manuel Rosales.
55
See “Opposition plans return to Venezuela Congress”, Inter
Press Service, 27 April 2010.
56
The plan was drafted in cooperation with 400 technicians and
in coordination with the politicians, under the leadership of a
technical MUD unit, led by MUD spokesperson and Executive
Secretary Ramón Aveledo. “Lineamientos para el Programa de
Gobierno de Unidad Nacional, 2013-2019”, MUD, 23 January
2012. Crisis Group interview, MUD representative, Caracas, 23
March 2012.
57
Crisis Group interview, MUD governance team member, Caracas, 26 March 2012.
58
María del Pilar García Guadilla, “Politización y polarización
de la sociedad civil venezolana: las dos caras frente a la democracia”, Espacio Abierto, vol. 12, no.1, Jan-Mar 2003, pp. 31-62.
59
“Lineamientos”, op. cit., p. 14.
60
A staff member of a local opposition politician said, “The
primaries were very early for the mayoral elections – almost
fourteen months beforehand. This makes governance in the
meantime very difficult. It also means that it may be difficult to
Page 7
defeat in October would be hugely demoralising and pose
an even graver threat to its unity.61
2. The primaries
Successful primaries in February gave the opposition
momentum, reinforcing both its unity and its moderate
wing.62 More than three million participated (17 per cent
of all registered voters), a higher number than anticipated,63 and an impressive turnout given the government’s
record of harassing opposition supporters.64 Crisis Group
heard reports that public employees were told not to participate if they wanted to keep their jobs.65 The president
himself, reportedly stung by the high participation rate, did
not publicly refer to the primaries until three days later.66
Capriles, with almost two-thirds of the votes, was a clear
winner. All losers of the presidential primary, and almost
all from the gubernatorial and mayoral primaries, quickly
conceded defeat. Many now actively support the Capriles
campaign, with Pablo Pérez, governor of Zulia state and
his closest challenger in the primary, prominent among
keep the alliance together”. Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 28
March 2012.
61
Crisis Group interviews, opposition allies and the MUD
campaign team, Caracas, 19-28 March 2012.
62
In addition to the presidential contest, MUD ran primaries for
gubernatorial candidates in seventeen of 24 states and mayoral
candidates in 249 of 335 municipalities (in the remaining states
and municipalities the parties agreed on a single candidate). In
total 1,108 candidates were elected in some 12,000 voting centres, including in Chávez bastions like the 23 de Enero, Caracas
neighbourhood. Crisis Group interviews, MUD activists and
organisers of opposition primaries, Caracas, 18-29 March 2012.
63
In his talkshow, La Hojilla, Maria Silva had said that the opposition would not be able to mobilise half a million voters. “Mario
Silva: ‘Se lo anunciamos: antes del 23 habrá consenso’”, video,
youtube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp5nqBzTOUY. MUD
announced that it needed at least one and a half million votes to
deem the primaries a success. Crisis Group interview, diplomat,
Caracas, 22 March 2012.
64
After the 2004 recall referendum – run by the previous CNE
– the names of all who had signed the call for the referendum
were published on the website of a Chavista deputy, Luis Tascón.
The list was widely reported to have been used by authorities to
discriminate against the signers. Despite its subsequent removal
from the website – reportedly following pressure from Chávez
himself – the database soon re-emerged as the Lista Maisanta,
named after its user-friendly and widely available software application. Chang-Tai Hsieh, Edward Miguel, Daniel Ortega and
Francisco Rodriguez, “The Price of Opposition: Evidence from
Venezuela’s Maisanta”, American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, Vol. 3 (April 2011), pp. 196-214.
65
Crisis Group telephone interviews, analyst, former senior
military official, Caracas, 13, 20 March 2012.
66
See “Lo que dijo Chávez sobre las Primarias”, Ultimas Noticias, video, 15 February 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
them.67 The presidential primary confirmed the lack of
electoral appeal of more radical opposition elements, which
picked up fewer than 5 per cent of the votes.68
The primaries buoyed the MUD in other ways too. They
were well run by a panel of independent but oppositionaffiliated officials.69 That the opposition held an internal
vote at all contrasted with the lack of ruling-party primaries and lent additional legitimacy to its candidates. Organisers guaranteed that the names of those who voted were
kept out of government hands by making use of indelible
ink voluntary, not using fingerprint scanners in polling
stations and destroying election materials afterwards.70
Perhaps most importantly, the MUD resisted a ruling by
the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo de Justicia) immediately after the vote to halt the destruction of materials.71
67
Acknowledging defeat after the primaries, Perez said, “This
is a historic moment because we are proving there is a Venezuela in which all the candidates, our organisations and movements are uniting together for the 7 October elections. Henrique
Capriles will be the new President of the Republic”. See “Pablo
Pérez y MCM en el acto de Radonski: ‘La unidad es lo importante para Venezuela’”, Noticias24, 15 Feb 2012. “Pablo Pérez
buscará votos para Capriles en cualquier rincón”, El Venezolano, 10 June 2012.
68
Capriles won 64.2 per cent; Perez (El Nuevo Tiempo party)
30.3 per cent; independent Corina Machado, who with her former organisation, Sumate, had led the call for the recall referendum, 3.7 per cent; and Diego Arria, another independent, 1.3
per cent. Leopoldo López, former mayor of Chacao municipality, withdrew on 24 January due to uncertainty whether the authorities would permit him to stand against Chávez and supported Capriles. Capriles and Perez are considered more moderate than the others.
69
The primaries were run by a committee headed by Teresa
Albanes, former UN official and minister under President Carlos Andrés Perez. The CNE assisted by providing machines and
other materials. “MUD constituye la Comisión Electoral para
las Primarias en febrero”, Noticias24, 25 May 2011. Crisis Group
interview, MUD representative, Caracas, 22 March 2012.
70
Crisis Group was given a copy of the agreement, signed by
the CNE board members, allowing for the destruction of material. The rules established that if no challenges were received
from candidates within 48 hours, organisers could burn the materials. They could do so earlier for specific contests if all candidates agreed. Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 22 March 2012.
71
The vast majority had already been burned. Crisis Group interview, MUD representative, Caracas, 22 March 2012. The
Supreme Court ordered the destruction to cease in response to a
complaint from a losing candidate for a local office. That the
case went straight to the top without passing through the lower
courts, as would be normal, and the speed with which the ruling
was made suggests it was politically motivated, as does Chávez’s criticism of the destruction in his first mention of the
primaries. “Lo que dijo Chávez sobre las primarias”, op.cit. Albanes was fined some $3,500 and faces a law suit.
Page 8
3. The Capriles campaign
Capriles, like Chávez, has never lost an election.72 He entered parliament as Venezuela’s youngest legislator and
president of the Chamber of Representatives on the Copei
ticket, before breaking with the party, co-founding Primero
Justicia and in 2000 running successfully for the mayoralty of Baruta, a municipality in the capital. In 2008, after
two terms as mayor, he wrested the governorship of Miranda – generally seen as the most important state outside
Caracas – from the incumbent Chavista strongman, Diosdado Cabello.73 On 5 June he resigned as governor to contest the presidency.
Capriles typifies a new generation of opposition politicians,
who insist they have put unconstitutional tactics behind
them. His campaign, centred on inclusion, social welfare
– notably education – and sound economic management,
is deliberately moderate, aiming, in the words of his strategists, to “turn a page on the polarisation and exclusion of
the past”.74 He promises to keep Chávez’s social programs,
but improve them and make them more accountable. He
avoids attacking the president personally; his discourse
thus contrasts not only with Chávez’s but also with that of
hardliners in the opposition camp and private media,
some of whom have been accused of cheering the president’s cancer.75
The campaign seeks to capitalise on his youth and health.
His packed schedule of rallies and face-to-face meetings
across the country resembles more than anything a typical
Chávez campaign: so much so that Chavistas complain he
72
Although the ruling party has lost elections, Chávez has never been defeated when running for office himself.
73
Capriles aborted his legislative career when Congress was
dissolved in 1999 with the election of the Constitutional Assembly.
74
Crisis Group interview, MUD technician and campaign adviser, 27 March 2012.
75
On 7 March 2012, Globovision’s chatshow “Aló Ciudadano”, aired a listener’s message saying “I will pray for Chávez
so that he can die and leave us alone” (“voy a rezar por Chávez
para que se muera y nos deje tranquilos”). See, “Globovisión
difunde mensaje que llama a la muerte del Presidente”, LaHojilla EnTV.com, 8 March 2012; “Más unidos que nunca”, TalCualDigital, 12 March 2012. Diosdado Cabello denounced
“violent messages” posted on Twitter by the right-wing Movimiento de la Resistencia Zuliana (@resistenciaZ) – which he
alleges is a MUD member – reportedly calling for attacks
against government employees. A further message purportedly
read: “[it is] everyone’s wish that this business will end with
the tyrant’s death” (“los deseos de todos porque esta guarandinga se termine con la muerte del tirano”). See, “PSUV denuncia mensajes violentos en Twitter vinculados a organización
política opositora”, Correo del Orinoco¸ 7 May 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
mimics their leader.76 His campaign, like that of the incumbent, is largely non-programmatic, instead focusing
on slogans appealing to voters’ emotions. His “Comando
Venezuela” campaign headquarters, under the leadership
of Leopoldo López and Armando Briquet, the latter president of the Miranda state legislative council, aims to reach
eight million voters.77 He has campaigned even in Chávez
bastions. With the exception of a shooting incident at Cotiza,78 he has not encountered problems, though inhabitants of the 23 de Enero district warn he should avoid entering such areas in Caracas.79
Page 9
in which Chavistas took refuge.84 More importantly, they
warn continually that he plans to dismantle social programs. In fact, in Miranda he has retained some welfare
programs, and he says that he seeks – like many Latin
American leaders – to emulate former President Luiz Ignácio “Lula” da Silva’s social spending in Brazil. Nonetheless, he faces an uphill battle to convince many poor
voters.
Notwithstanding opposition gains in some poorer parts of
the capital during recent elections, Capriles’s main challenge is to convince the country’s poor that he can protect
their interests. Opinion polls thus far give weight to sceptics’ claims that, with his wealthy background and appearance, he will struggle to deepen his appeal beyond the
middle and upper classes. Over the past month, a number
of commentators, including opposition sympathisers,
have criticised the Capriles campaign for failing to pick
up steam after the primaries.80 Many poor voters, who
perceive their lives as having improved under Chávez’s
government, still view the opposition as protectors of its
traditional constituency’s privileges.81 Many consider that
their gains are at stake; some even express terror about
what would happen were the opposition to win or their
president to succumb to his illness.82
Chavistas play on these fears. They tend to present Capriles as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, his moderation an electoral tactic and a veer to the right as inevitable should he
win.83 They refer often to him as a golpista, referencing his
role during the coup, when as Baruta mayor, they allege,
he made insufficient efforts to protect the Cuban embassy
76
Crisis Group interview, analyst, Caracas, 23 March 2012. He
added: “Even the opposition think that they need another Chávez – look at Capriles’s campaign”.
77
“8 millones por el triunfo”, TalCualDigital, 7 May 2012;
“Comando Venezuela completó 30% de equipos de defensa del
voto”, LaVoz, 5 May 2012. The original name of the headquarters was “Comando Tricolor”.
78
See Section IV.A.2 below.
79
Crisis Group interviews, colectivo members and inhabitants
of 23 de Enero, also with ruling party official, Caracas, 19-28
March 2012.
80
Crisis Group telephone interview, analyst, Caracas, 5 June
2012.
81
The appointment as campaign manager of Leopoldo López, a
popular politician but one whose appearance is very much like
that of Capriles, has done little to dispel perceptions of elitism.
82
Crisis Group interviews, community activists, 23 de Enero,
Caracas, 22, 24 January 2012.
83
Crisis Group interviews, community activist, academic, Caracas, 22-23 March 2012.
84
During the failed 2002 coup against President Chávez, a
group of anti-Chávez protesters laid siege to the Cuban embassy in Baruta, where they suspected senior Chavistas, including
Vice President Diosdado Cabello, had sought refuge. Capriles
was jailed for four months, accused of leading the siege but was
cleared of all charges. See, “Venezuela poll: opposition candidate Henrique Capriles”, BBC, 13 February 2012; “How will
Venezuela’s vote affect ties with Cuba?”, Al Jazeera, 28 March
2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
III. FREE AND UNFAIR ELECTIONS?
Chávez’s health and the challenge from Capriles sharpen
focus on the playing field for October’s vote and particularly the electoral authorities’ role as umpire. Past elections
have been competitive and reasonably free. The CNE is
partisan, though not as tainted as other institutions and
generally regarded as competent. Participation rates are
above average for the continent.85 Most eligible citizens
can cast their ballots in secret and be confident they
count. Voting machines arouse suspicion in some quarters
but have been hailed by observers – and by the Capriles
team – as effective. Perhaps most significantly, the opposition has won recent polls.
But elections are far from fair. The advantages of incumbency (ventajismo) are significant. The CNE tends to enforce rules unevenly, which skews the playing field in favour of the government. It rarely enforces regulations on
the media, which are flaunted by both state and independent outlets, or, graver still, those governing the use of state
resources for campaigning, which the ruling party in particular violates brazenly. The government does not plan
to invite credible international observer groups.86 Moreover, the vote takes place in an environment in which
checks and balances and the autonomy of state institutions
have been steadily eroded. Any attempt by the ruling party to delay the election or reject results would put the
CNE centre-stage and likely subject it to more severe executive pressure than previously. The judiciary has a role
in resolving electoral disputes, is more overtly pro-government and offers another potential avenue for interference.87
A. THE ELECTORAL AUTHORITIES
The constitution mandates the CNE to run elections independent of the executive.88 It is, however, widely acknowl85
For example, the 2010 parliamentary elections had a turnout
of 66 per cent of registered voters, the 2006 presidential elections 73 per cent. In Colombia, turnouts for the three most recent presidential elections were 44-45 per cent. Turnouts for
recent Guatemalan general elections hover between 45 and 60
per cent.
86
Crisis Group interview, CNE staff, Caracas, 27 March 2012.
87
The Supreme Court’s electoral chamber resolves disputes
related to the CNE; the CNE itself resolves complaints about
other electoral violations. See the LOPE, Articles 213-214, and
the Ley Orgánica del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Article
5.45-46.
88
The Constitution defines five branches of government: in addition to the executive, legislative and judicial, the “electoral
power” (Poder Electoral) is the fourth and “citizen power”
(Poder Ciudadano), comprising the ombudsman, public prosecutor and comptroller offices, the fifth. The CNE, as the governing body of the Poder Electoral, has comparatively wide
Page 10
edged as pro-Chávez, even by its supporters; four of its
five board members (rectores) are recognised as having
government sympathies.89 Former board members have
received powerful government positions on leaving the
CNE.90
Despite its bias, the CNE appears less prone to executive
meddling than some other state institutions. International
observers in 2006 hailed the current board’s efforts to
mend relations with opposition politicians and secure their
buy-in to new voting technology, which may have contributed to their decision to participate in those elections.
They also praised the CNE’s technical competence and
transparency, conclusions echoed by national observers in
2010.91 Organisers of the opposition primaries, which the
CNE assisted, recognised its role as “correct” and concluded “… the CNE is not lost, like some other institutions
– there is good within it”.92 Nor does its every decision
powers compared with similar electoral bodies on the continent
and contains three subordinate national bodies, each headed by
a board member. The Junta Nacional Electoral (National Electoral Junta), is responsible for administering elections and directing CNE local branches during elections. The Comisión de
Registro Civil y Electoral (Civil and Electoral Register Commission) manages the civil and voter registries. The Comisión
de Participación Política y Financiamiento (Political Participation and Financing Commission) oversees registration and finances of parties and candidates. In addition to permanent regional offices, the CNE recruits a large number of temporary
staff for each election.
89
Crisis Group interviews, Caracas, 18-29 March 2012. Current
board members include the chair, Tibisay Lucena Ramírez; Vicente José Gregorio Díaz Silva, with a private-sector background and the only opposition ally; Socorro Elizabeth Hernández, a former minister who also ran the state-owned telecommunications company, CANTV; Tania D’ Amelio Cardiet,
a former PSUV National Assembly deputy; and Sandra Oblitas
Ruzza, who has held various CNE positions; see “Autoridades”,
www.cne.gob.ve/web/la_institucion/autoridades.php. The seven-year terms of Tibisay Lucena, Sandra Oblitas and Vicente
Diaz end in 2013; those of the other two in 2016. Board members are approved by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly from a list prepared by an election nomination committee, whose members are similarly approved by the National Assembly; the committee shortlists candidates based on submissions from universities and civil society groups, among others.
The opposition boycott of parliamentary elections in 2005 left
the legislature in Chavista hands, facilitating appointment of
loyalists.
90
Jorge Rodriguez went from the CNE to vice president, to a
mayor’s office in Caracas and now runs the Chávez campaign.
91
See, “Final Report. Presidential Elections in Venezuela 2006”,
European Union Election Observation Mission, 1 February 2007.
The opposition’s decision to participate in the 2006 presidential
election was, however, mostly driven by its recognition that the
boycott the previous year was a tactical disaster.
92
Crisis Group interview, organiser of opposition primaries,
Caracas, 22 March 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
appear dependent on a green light from the executive.
Acceptance of the opposition’s plan to destroy materials
from its primaries reportedly angered Chávez, for example.93
The chair, Tibisay Lucena Ramírez, in particular is perceived to be a less ardent government loyalist – notwithstanding the limited political space in which she works –
than some of her colleagues.94 Her reported concern for
her reputation outside Venezuela may also reduce her susceptibility to pressure. In the event of Chavismo losing,
her and her colleagues’ willingness to stick by the result
and announce it publicly – despite potential government
coercion or judicial meddling – could prove decisive in
persuading the ruling party to stand down. Likewise, were
the president’s illness to prevent him contesting the election, CNE adherence to the constitution and its electoral
calendar, even in the face of pressure to delay or suspend
the vote, could be crucial in preventing instability.95
Assessing the precise impact of the CNE’s partisanship
on electoral outcomes is difficult. On the one hand, its progovernment reputation makes its every decision contentious;96 on the other, the Capriles campaign is wary of denouncing the CNE’s flaws too forcefully, at least before
the election, for fear of dissuading supporters from participating. Concerns raised in private, however, create the
sense that while the CNE – at least under the current
leadership – has never itself manipulated results, it does
not enforce rules evenly and may even deploy pressures
and obstacles that disadvantage Chávez opponents.
For example, it rarely punishes the blatant use of state resources, mostly by the ruling party. Nor does it enforce
93
See above; Crisis Group interviews, Caracas, 19-28 March
2012.
94
Crisis Group interviews, members of Capriles’s campaign
team and other opposition figures, Caracas, 19-23 March 2012.
95
See Section IV below.
96
The rescheduling of the vote, for example, from December,
when previous presidential polls were held, to October was interpreted by some as a tactic to cut the time an ailing Chávez
would need to campaign, by others as a means of allowing the
Chavista elite, if defeated, additional time before Capriles assumed office in January to strip the presidency of its power and
the state of its assets; still others said those months would give
thousands of Cuban advisers opportunity to leave the country.
According to the opposition’s representatives in the CNE, the
new date was driven mostly by reluctance to hold presidential
and local polls together, which would have been more complex
for the electoral authorities and voters alike. In 2000, the last
year in which presidential and regional elections were in the
same year, technical problems just ahead of the vote led to postponement and separation of the elections. Crisis Group interview, opposition representative, Caracas, 28 March 2012. For
the 2000 elections see Rubén M. Perina, “The Future of Electoral Observation”, Americas Quarterly, 25 April 2012.
Page 11
campaign finance or media rules.97 Its drawing of constituency boundaries for parliamentary seats ahead of the
2010 polls appears to have mostly benefited the PSUV.98
Opposition-allied civil society groups complained that its
recent updating of the voter rolls resulted in an allocation
of registration centres that favoured pro-Chávez areas.99
Opposition campaign staff claim that new polling centres,
too, are concentrated in Chavista areas, thereby facilitating the access of the president’s supporters.100 They also
argue that, together with the government, the CNE obstructs
voting by citizens living abroad, most of whom oppose
Chávez.101
The current CNE has, nonetheless, run polls that the government has lost: the 2007 referendum, as well as important
gubernatorial races, including that won by Capriles in Miranda in 2008 against a close Chávez ally and others in
key populous states like Zulia and Carabobo. Moreover,
as noted, opposition candidates won more votes, if fewer
seats, than the Chavistas in the 2010 parliamentary elections. True, the stakes in the presidential election are far
higher, especially with Chávez’s ill-health, but elections
in Venezuela’s constricted political space – even if not
fully fair – are competitive, and precedent exists for the
CNE to proclaim a ruling-party defeat.
97
See section III.D below.
See footnote 50 above.
99
Crisis Group interview, Voto Joven (a civil society organization focused on mobilising young voters) representatives, Caracas, 19 March 2012. They also asserted that centres in opposition strongholds, like private or autonomous universities, were
reportedly open shorter hours, making it more difficult for opposition supporters to register. Some opposition representatives
also note that the Voto Joven campaign would have been more
effective were it less confrontational (Crisis Group interview,
Caracas, 28 March 2012).
100
Crisis Group interviews, Capriles campaign staff, other opposition allies, Caracas, 19-28 March 2012. They also said that
while polling staff are chosen by lottery, the CNE tries harder
to inform government than opposition supporters of selection.
101
According to some estimates, about a million Venezuelans live
outside the country; according to the CNE only 34,216 out of some
57,000 registered voters in this category voted in the 2006 presidential elections. “Elección presidencial – 3 de Diciembre 2006”,
www.cne.gob.ve/divulgacionPresidencial/resultado_nacional.
php?color=&c2=0&e=99; “Oposición venezolana busca votos
fuera del país para vencer a Chávez”, Agence France-Presse, 19
October 2011. Like many countries that allow voting abroad, it
must be done in an embassy. Opposition complaints focus on
short opening hours of embassies for registration and obstruction by staff. Press reports recently quoted Vicente Diaz, the
only opposition-allied board member, as calling such voting a
“disaster”. “Calificó como ‘un desastre’ el proceso de inscripción
en el RE de venezolanos en el exterior”, Noticias24, 13 April
2012.
98
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
B. FEARS OF FRAUD
1. Automated voting …
Venezuela’s voting system is among the world’s most
technologically advanced. Voting machines were adopted
in the early 2000s, and their use has advanced throughout
the past decade. The combination of electronic voting
with a manual audit is often regarded as proficient, even
innovative.102 The EU observation mission in 2006, which
deployed two electronic voting experts, called the system
“effective, secure and auditable”.103 It still generates suspicion, however, especially in some opposition quarters.
Misgivings stem from their deep distrust of the government, scepticism over the 2004 recall referendum, which
Chávez won against both expectations and polling projections, and flaws identified ahead of the 2005 parliamentary polls which partly sparked the boycott.104 Since then
the CNE has done much to allay fears, introducing an array of audits and checks and involving opposition technicians in key technology decisions.
102
On election day, voters “activate” the voting machine by
scanning prints and entering ID card numbers in the scanner.
They then select their candidate on the machine and receive a
printout slip with the name, allowing them to confirm their
choice. This is put into the ballot box. At day’s end, results are
transmitted directly from the voting machines by land or mobile telephone connection to a central tabulation centre in Caracas. Some 54 per cent of polling stations are randomly audited,
which involves counting in the presence of agents the votes for
each candidate on the slips in the ballot box and verifying those
totals against the results sent to Caracas by the machine. At
least one polling station is audited in each polling centre (a centre – often a school or other large building – usually includes
multiple stations or booths). The combination of electronic voting
and random manual audit makes the system difficult to manipulate, provided opposition agents are in polling stations throughout the day.
103
The report noted: “Although the existence of some inadvertent errors cannot be totally excluded, this electronic system is
effective, secure and auditable”. “Final Report”, EU Observation Mission 2006, op. cit., p. 20.
104
The results of the 2004 recall referendum still generate controversy. For a summary of the main arguments of those who
allege widespread fraud, see “¿Qué esconde el Consejo Nacional
Electoral? Y ¿Por Qué?”, Esdata,Venezolanos por la Transparencia Electoral, Caracas, September 2007, http://esdata.info/
pdf/que-esconde_es.pdf; “Revisiting the 2004 Venezuelan Referendum”, Statistical Science, Vol. 26, No. 4 (2011). Those
around Capriles, disagree. One said, “those who accuse the
government of fraud with the technology can’t accept that we
were a minority. So they believe instead that elections were
fraudulent. But we accept we were a minority. The majority,
especially the poor, were with Chávez. We need to win them
over”. Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 27 March 2012.
Page 12
But concerns persist. A common fear is that the machines
alter candidates’ vote totals.105 Extensive audits of them
over recent elections have proved this unfounded. Moreover, manual audits after polls close of some 54 per cent
of polling stations and more than half the stations in each
centre allow opposition agents to verify results. A second
relates to the vote’s secrecy. For the first time, the CNE
will place fingerprint scanners in all polling booths, with
a voter’s fingerprints and national ID card number activating the machine.106 Some fear that that the connection
between scanner and voting machine links the identity of
voters to their voting preference, undermining secrecy.107
Again, however, checks by opposition and independent
auditors reveal that the preference of a voter cannot be
traced back to the identification in the fingerprint scanner.108
A more justified fear pertains to the optics. The vote may
be secret, opposition technicians argue, but many citizens
do not fully understand or believe that, especially given
the government’s history of using their personal data to
discriminate against opposition supporters.109 Voters’ perceptions that the authorities will know how they vote risk
influencing their choice of candidate. Civil servants, often
already subject to pressure to vote for Chávez, are especially vulnerable. The opposition decided against using
the fingerprint scanners for its primaries for this very reason. The president himself often mentions the importance
of the scanners, which the opposition campaign team argues is a “psychological game”, a subtle implication they
serve government purposes.110 Considering the misuse of
105
Crisis Group interviews, Caracas, 19-28 March 2012. A
more fanciful theory holds that a fibre optic cable to Havana
allows Chávez’s Cuban allies to manufacture parallel results.
106
Voters’ fingerprints and national ID numbers must match
those on the voter rolls for the polling station in which they will
vote for the fingerprint machine to activate the voting machine.
107
This fear has roots in the 2005 elections, when a civil society group discovered that a programming error allowed the sequence of votes to be reconstructed, thus linking each ballot to
an individual. The CNE’s closure of this gap immediately after
it was identified was insufficient to prevent the boycott. Crisis
Group interviews, civil society representatives, Caracas, 26
March 2012.
108
The sequence of voters of each polling station is scrambled
in the fingerprint scanner, making it impossible to trace each
vote in the machine back to a specific person’s ID in the scanner. Crisis Group interview, opposition technicians, Caracas, 27
March 2012. See also “Final Report”, EU Observation Mission
2006, op. cit.
109
See footnote 64 above.
110
Crisis Group interviews, Caracas, 19-28 March 2012. See,
for example, Chávez’s mention of the fingerprint scanners in
his speech in Ciudad Bolivar commemorating the 193th anniversary of the Angostura Congress on 15 February 2012, “Presidente Chávez: el 7 de octubre habrá captahuellas y no se quemará cuadernos”, video, Dailymotion, 15 February 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
data that has marked previous polls, the CNE should step
up its public information campaign on voter secrecy.111
2. … artisan rigging?
The Capriles team and much of the moderate opposition
is less fearful of wholesale theft than of localised, smallscale fraud. Their worries focus on any polling stations to
which they are unable to deploy agents (testigos), due to
either insecurity or remoteness. There, polling staff with
PSUV sympathies could augment the Chávez tally by entering votes for citizens who did not show up to vote. This
concern, they argue, is compounded by inaccuracies in
the voter register, notably the inclusion of deceased citizens in whose names extra votes might also be entered,
and the last-minute transfer of voters between centres,
which could in effect deprive some citizens of the opportunity to cast their own ballot.112
In principle, fingerprint scanners prevent this type of rigging, as the voting machine can only be activated by the
voter in person, via a fingerprint. However, the CNE’s fingerprint database – a merger of prints from the civil register and those it has collected itself – lacks usable prints
from more than one million voters.113 Moreover, the biometric system, like any of its kind, has a margin of error,
which at 1 per cent is comparatively low but still significant.114 A back-up procedure for voters whose names appear
on the rolls but whose prints either are not in the database
or are unreadable has not yet been regulated but will
111
A final concern is that as all polling centres can connect to a
central database, the government can verify voting patterns during the day. Continuously monitoring who has voted, when,
and where, allows it to concentrate on bringing out supporters
who have not yet voted. The machines, however, only connect
to the central database once during the day, to transmit results
when polls are closed, making central monitoring unworkable,
at least by computer. Crisis Group interview, 28 March 2011,
Caracas, CNE staff and opposition representatives. Also “Final
Report”, EU Observation Mission 2006, op. cit., p. 20.
112
Observers reported inaccuracies in the register in 2005 and
2006, including the names of deceased on the rolls and citizens
with more than one ID card. Moreover, the past decade, and
particularly the years between the recall referendum and the
2006 presidential elections, have seen a dramatic increase in the
number of voters on the rolls, which the CNE says has addressed
previous abstentions, but some in the opposition argue reflect
foreigners or other ineligible voters. Since 2006, the audits recommended by observers have been partial, not including doorto-door checks to verify a statistical sample of names on the
register. Crisis Group interviews, Caracas, 19-28 March 2012.
113
The CNE recently reported that some 1.2 million fingerprints
registered in the Sistema de Autenticación Integrado were “defective”. See, “CNE revisará 1 millón 200 mil huellas que están
“defectuosas”“, El Universal, 18 June 2012.
114
Crisis Group interview, opposition representative to the
CNE, Caracas, 23 March 2012.
Page 13
probably allow an electoral staff member – rather than the
voter – to use his or her fingerprint to activate the machine. This in theory opens the door to manipulation,
though only where all polling staff are pro-government
and no opposition agents are present.
Fears of manipulation in remote or inaccessible areas are
compounded by a dramatic increase over recent years in
the number of polling centres, reportedly weighted towards
Chávez bastions. New centres tend to be smaller, with only one or two stations servicing between some 100 and
1,000 voters, and in 2010 PSUV candidates performed
considerably better in these smaller centres.115 Some opposition sources argue this indicates fraud, though it
could simply mean that the decentralisation has favoured
remote, often marginalised areas that tend to support the
president.
C. SCRUTINY
A centrepiece of the opposition’s electoral strategy is to
“defend the vote”, by deploying its agents to every polling station, even those in inaccessible areas, to help prevent fraud. This requires a massive logistical exercise:
each of some 38,500 polling booths requires at least one
agent, with additional staff for training, transporting, supervising and feeding them. It also requires a degree of
mobilisation that in previous polls has proved beyond the
opposition.116 The Capriles campaign office reports that
its efforts this year to muster sufficient numbers are on
track.117 It plans to run its own parallel vote count based
on the results collected by its agents across the country.
The work of national observers is an important component of civic participation in elections and a useful domestic check, especially in a country with deep polarisation and sensitivity to foreign interference. However, such
observers, large numbers of whom usually complement
the work of party agents across the continent and beyond,
115
In 2012 there will be 14,035 polling centres and 38,538 polling stations – including 127 abroad and 27 in prisons – as opposed to 11,118 and 33,001 in 2006; see, “Miembros de Mesa
para la presidencial se escogen hoy”, El Universal, 22 March
2012; “The Electoral Branch of Government. The Venezuelan
experience”, CNE, October 2011, http://venezuela-us.org/es/
wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Ven-Electoral-Branch-by-TibisayLucena.pdf. See also the database of Esdata at www.esdata.
info.
116
Even for the 2010 parliamentary vote, which saw the opposition more united than previously, many polling stations were
without opposition agents. Crisis Group interview, opposition
campaign staff, Caracas, 27 March 2012.
117
Ibid. Also Crisis Group telephone interview, international
election expert, Caracas, 5 June 2012. Also see Maru Morales,
Álex Vásquez, “Comando Venezuela espera la respuesta del
CNE de seis peticiones”, El Nacional, 7 June 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
are absent from most Venezuelan polling stations because
the CNE limits the number from any one organisation.
This means no independent group can obtain a complete
picture of events on election day or make a parallel vote
tabulation.118 The CNE restriction appears unnecessary
and counter-productive.
Unlike for previous elections, the CNE does not plan to
invite international observers from organisations like the
European Union (EU), the Carter Center or the Organisation of American States (OAS), whose experience and
methodology would allow for a comprehensive assessment.119 Its official reasons include that the new electoral
law does not envisage observation, but rather “accompaniment” – a much less intrusive concept involving select
foreigners visiting for a few days around the election,
with itineraries run by the CNE.120 The Union of South
American Nations (UNASUR) has received a slightly
more robust mandate, but while it might play a useful role
in future, it has limited monitoring experience. Having
organised its electoral unit only recently, it will probably
not be able to offer a comprehensive and reliable analysis
of the October contest.121 The CNE normally invites some
other foreign organisations, including journalists and civil
society groups, but they rarely arrive before the last week
of polling, so witness little more than the vote and count –
the “photo finish”, according to an opposition representative to the CNE.122
118
In 2006, the EU observers noted national observers in only
some 4 per cent of polling stations. “Final Report”, EU Observation Mission 2006, op. cit., p. 46. In 2010, each organisation
was limited to 624 observers. The CNE has not yet said how
many from each group will be accredited in October; “Hasta
2.496 observadores nacionales se podrán desplegar por todo el
país”, CNE, 18 August 2010. One of the more credible groups
from previous elections, Ojo Electoral, disbanded in 2010, after
disagreement between its founding members over how to respond to perceived government pressure. Crisis Group interview, former election observer, Caracas, 21 March 2012.
119
Crisis Group interview, CNE staff, Caracas, 27 March 2012.
120
The CNE also says its technical progress has made international observation superfluous and notes a lack of reciprocity:
EU governments do not invite Venezuelans to observe their elections. Crisis Group interview, CNE staff, Caracas, 27 March 2012.
121
Crisis Group telephone interview, international official,
Caracas, 5 June 2012. UNASUR’s new general secretary, Ali
Rodríguez, is a close ally of Chávez (see Section IV.C.1 below). On the creation of the electoral unit see “Canciller de
Venezuela celebró creacion de Consejo Electoral de UNASUR”,
TelesurTV, 11 June 2012.
122
See, for example, “NLG Election Delegation to Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela”, National Lawyers Guild International
Committee, 2 May 2012. Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 28
March 2012.
Page 14
Ideally the government and CNE would invite observers
from all traditional observer groups, including the EU and
the OAS. Given their reasonably positive appraisals in the
past, especially of the CNE’s work – appraisals denounced
by parts of the opposition – the government and CNE appear to be shooting themselves in the foot by withholding
invitations.123 A non-partisan assessment would be crucial
were results contested or the margin of victory narrow.
The CNE should also invite the Unión Inter-Americana
de Organismos Electorales (UNIORE), a regional union
of electoral bodies to which it belongs and as such has
committed itself to its monitoring.124 UNIORE is supported by the Centre for Electoral Assistance and Promotion
(CAPEL) at the Inter-American Institute for Human
Rights (IIHR) in Costa Rica. Its missions include members of other Latin American election commissions and
potentially offer good offices to mediate electoral disputes.125 Little time remains before the elections, so any
invitation must be issued swiftly to allow those receiving
them time to prepare.126
123
The EU and OAS have not been invited to observe Venezuelan elections since 2006. The Carter Center observed the 2007
referendum and more recently was invited by the MUD to observe its primaries. In 2005 and 2006, all observation missions’
final reports tended to praise the CNE and the voting mechanics, while condemning the use of state resources, mostly by the
ruling party, and the polarised and divisive media environment.
See, for example, “Final Report”, EU Observation Mission
2006, op. cit.; “Observing the 2006 Presidential Elections in
Venezuela: Final Report of the Technical Mission”, Carter
Center, November 2007; “Informe Final de la Misión de Observación Electoral de la OEA sobre las Elecciones Presidenciales Celebradas en Venezuela el 3 de Diciembre de 2006”,
OAS, 10 September 2008.
124
The 1991 Caracas Pact, which Venezuela has ratified, requires
all UNIORE members to invite each other to observe their elections. UNIORE has, with the support of the Centre for Electoral
Assistance and Promotion (CAPEL), observed all Venezuelan elections and referenda since the Pact was ratified. Rules and regulations of UNIORE establish the scope of the observation, which
includes the whole electoral process. Reports are submitted to the
CNE, however and are thus not public. Crisis Group phone interview, CAPEL executive, San José, Costa Rica, 8 June 2012.
Also see, “Acta Constitutiva de la Unión Interamericana de
Organismos Electorales”, 22 November 1991, and Centro De
Asesoría Y Promoción Electoral (CAPEL) Charter, www.iidh.
ed.cr/comunidades/redelectoral/docs/red_diccionario/centro%
20de%20asesoria%20y%20promocion.htm.
125
It reportedly played an important behind-the-scenes role
during the closely-contested Mexican elections in 2006. Crisis
Group phone interview, CAPEL executive, San José, Costa Rica, 8 June 2012.
126
All organisations need time to mount missions. For example,
as the EU has not yet received an invitation, it would already be
difficult for it to deploy a mission. Crisis Group interviews, EU
and OAS staff, Caracas, 19-28 March 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
D. VENTAJISMO AND A SKEWED CAMPAIGN
1. The media
The law requires state and private media to balance the
time and space they dedicate during the campaign to candidates and bans them from openly supporting candidates,
influencing citizens’ votes or publishing material that
damages any person’s reputation.127 Balanced political reporting is nonetheless rare: most is partisan, some offensive, and overall the media, which reflects and aggravates
the deeply polarised politics, contributes to a divisive campaign. Public and private outlets share responsibility.128
In recent years, the government has taken control of an expanding share of the media. Since the 2002 coup, which
some private media supported, it has closed some 40 radio and television stations.129 Particularly controversial
was the May 2007 non-renewal by CONATEL, the telecommunications regulator, of the licence of RCTV, then
the largest open-broadcast station.130 Globovisión, another
large private TV station openly critical of Chávez, has faced
numerous charges. It was fined more than $2 million in
October 2011 for its coverage of a prison riot, and it and
its journalists are reportedly subject to continual, low-level
harassment.131 Other networks formerly critical of the government appear to have toned down their coverage for
127
LOPE, Articles 75, 79 and 81.
Extreme examples are the programs “La Hojilla”, on the
state TV channel Venezolana de Televisión, which regularly
accuses Capriles of being a homosexual, and “Aló Ciudadano”,
on Globovisión. A respected civil society group monitoring the
2010 campaign concluded that the ruling party was responsible
for 198 of 211 instances of what it considered violations of
regulations prohibiting language promoting intolerance and 246
of 260 violations of those banning discriminatory language.
“Informe Final: Observación Elecciones Parliamentarias 26 de
Septiembre de 2010”, Ojo Electoral, (report shared with Crisis
Group).
129
See for example Maurice Lemoine, “Venezuela’s press power”, Le Monde Diplomatique, 10 August 2002.
130
Headed by the president’s ally, Diosdado Cabello, CONATEL is widely perceived as close to the government. RCTV reopened on cable and satellite but went out of business in 2010.
131
See, for example, ”CPJ Condemns Two Venezuelan Media
Laws”, Committee to Protect Journalists, 21 December 2010;
“HRF condemns media crackdown and relaunches its campaign
for press freedom in Venezuela”, Human Rights Foundation, 3
February 2010; “Freedom of the Press 2011 – Venezuela”, UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), 27 October 2010; “SIP condena agudización de la censura al libre flujo
informativo en Venezuela”, Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa,
21 December 2010. Except for Caracas and a handful of other
states, Globovisión is now available only on cable, though
many Venezuelans have access to it by that means.
128
Page 15
fear of similar harassment.132 Such measures have cut into
the share of the broadcast media that is opposition-orientated, sparking regular reports by human rights and other
monitoring bodies of curtailments in press freedom.133
Meanwhile Chávez and his allies openly use state media
to campaign. Observers during the 2006 presidential election, for example, reported that Venezolana de Televisión
(VTV), the main state broadcaster, devoted 86 per cent of
its coverage to the president, the vast majority of which
was positive, whereas the 14 per cent dedicated to the opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales, was predominantly
negative. Reporting on private channels Globovisión and
RCTV was the opposite: Rosales received 65 per cent
(Globovisión) and 69 per cent (RCTV) of mostly positive
coverage, Chávez 35 per cent (Globovisión) and 29 per
cent (RCTV) of mostly negative coverage. The state media’s reporting, however, was so biased that EU observers
called specifically for the state media – as a public resource
– to cease all publicity during future election campaigns.134
“Cadenas” are another campaign tool: broadcasts that it is
mandatory for all television and radio outlets, private and
public, to carry and that the president uses to proclaim his
government’s successes, and, often, to insult the opposition. Thousands are estimated to have been broadcast during Chávez’s time in office.135 During the official campaign
period for the last presidential election, the government
cut the frequency and length of cadenas, took off air the
program “Aló Presidente”, another platform for Chávez,
and did not broadcast his inauguration of public works,
measures that went some way toward levelling the playing field.136 While neither the government nor the CNE
have given any indication this will be repeated in 2012,
Chávez’s health may limit his ability to speak for hours
on live television.
Chavistas have a different take on Venezuela’s media. They
point to its pluralism and regular criticism of the government, including personal attacks against Chávez.137 They
132
“WikiLeaks: Presión de Chávez obliga a prensa venezolana
a suavizar las críticas”, El Nacional, 24 January 2011.
133
See, for example, ”CPJ Condemns Two Venezuelan Media
Laws”, op. cit.; “Freedom of the Press 2011 – Venezuela”, op.
cit.; “SIP condena agudización de la censura al libre flujo informativo en Venezuela”, op. cit.
134
EU Observation Mission, “Final Report”, op. cit.
135
See Angel Alvarez, “Countries at the Crossroads 2011 –
Venezuela”, Freedom House, 10 November 2011.
136
Crisis Group interview, MUD representatives, Caracas, 27
March 2012; EU Observation Mission, “Final Report” op. cit.
137
“Information by Country – Venezuela”, Inter American Press
Association, no date, www.sipiapa.org/v4/det_informe.php?
asamblea=48&infoid=862&idioma=us, reported that “On March
9 text messages were hacked from the program ‘Aló Ciudadano’,
directed by Leopoldo Castillo, and inappropriate emails were
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
argue that far more media outlets – print and electronic –
oppose the president than support him. Moreover, they
see the ruling party’s accumulation of media power as a
natural response to the opposition’s previous dominance,
especially given the private media’s support of the 2002
coup.138 Their arguments contain some truth: inflammatory language from opposition-allied media does contribute
to the negative tone of campaigning;139 more networks are
independent than government-controlled; and the opposition has wealthy supporters and does not appear to lack
for funds.140 But together the Chavista dominance of the
state media, the cadenas, the compliance or self-censorship of much of the non-state media and the harassment
of outlets that openly support Capriles give the president
a handy advantage.
2. Public resources
Arguably the gravest symptom of CNE bias is the failure
to check blatant violations in the rules restricting the use
of state resources for campaigning, mostly – though not
exclusively – by the ruling party.141 Such exploitation for
electoral ends is certainly not unique to Venezuela; the
often partisan nature of civil services across Latin America makes it a common problem on the continent. But in
sent concerning the health of the president”. The government
launched an investigation in 2008 after Rafael Poleo – editor of
the right-wing El Nuevo País – warned on the talk show “Aló,
Ciudadano”, “be careful, Hugo. Don’t end up like your counterpart Benito Mussolini, hung upside down”. James Suggett,
“Venezuelan newspaper editor investigated for inciting president’s assassinaton”, venezuelaanalysis.com, 15 October 2008.
138
Lemoine, “Venezuela’s Press Power”, op. cit.
139
See, for example, “El ignorante Chávez”, TalCualDigital,
18 June 2012; “Venezuela entre la vida y la muerte”, El Universal, 18 June 2012; “Doctor Hugo”, El Nacional, 10 February
2012.
140
According to one Chavista, “Check the media. 80 per cent is
pro-opposition, 20 per cent for Chávez. It’s not true the opposition can’t get its message out. Check the FM radio. Look at the
main newspapers, which are opposition”. Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 23 March 2013. According to some estimates,
the government controls “two of eight national daily newspapers, five of twelve open-signal national television channels, 79
of 472 radio stations”, as well as hundreds of community radio
stations that largely reflect its line. Alvarez, “Countries at the
Crossroads”, op. cit. Data on newspaper circulation suggests
those sympathetic to the opposition have a greater market
share. Reliable data on the reach of television and radio networks is scarce.
141
The rules governing the use of state resources are in the
electoral law and CNE regulations, in particular regulation no.
6 of the Ley Orgánica de Procesos Electorales en Materia de
Propaganda Durante la Campaňa Electoral. They tend to focus
on the official campaign period, which gives the CNE a pretext
to ignore abuse before it begins, though both camps do much
early campaigning.
Page 16
Venezuela the misuse is extreme: civil servants face pressure to vote for and donate money to the ruling party; officials openly campaign for the president; huge photos of
Chávez and Bolivarian slogans are plastered over government buildings; and the social programs are often barelydisguised patronage.142 Meanwhile, no state funding is
provided to parties, further disadvantaging the opposition.
The state employs, according to some estimates, 20 per
cent of the national workforce, so pressure on its employees to vote for Chávez gives him a significant edge.143
Ministries vary in their tactics, from “inviting” them to
wear “revolutionary” red or attend ruling-party rallies to
openly exhorting votes for the president. Few examples
have been as brazen as the call, captured on camera, by
Rafael Ramirez, the energy and oil minister and head of
the state-owned oil company PDVSA, for its employees
to vote for Chávez, but reports of pressure elsewhere are
widespread.144 While it may not automatically translate
into votes, it contributes to a skewed playing field and perhaps also to voter fear.
Hikes in public spending, in particular the raft of new social programs that the government calls the “Misión 7 de
Octubre” – in line with the election date – appear aimed
mostly at shoring up votes, much as was done before previous polls.145 According to some estimates, 45 per cent
142
A report by Ojo Electoral on the 2010 campaign called use
of public office and state funds among the most common violations; 360 and 114 respectively. Other common violations included campaigning outside official campaign dates (336) and
intolerant (260) or discriminatory (211) language. “Informe Final”, op. cit., p. 35. The campaign “a day of your salary for the
revolution” (“un día de salario para la revolución”) invites PSUV
members and other sympathisers to donate money for the campaign. Opposition-affiliated trade unions have issued complaints
about coercion, but the government insists that such contributions are voluntary, except for high-level public officials such
as ministers. “Denuncian presiones a funcionarios para dar dinero al PSUV”, Informe 21, 12 June 2012.
143
Public sector workers number almost 2.4 million. “Casi un
millón de trabajadores ha asumido el Estado en 10 años”, El
Universal, 7 September 2009; “Estatizaciones inyectan casi un
millón de trabajadores al Estado”, El Universal, 28 June 2011;
“Venezuela: empleados públicos vuelven a trabajar ‘completo’”, BBC Mundo, 3 August 2010.
144
“Ramírez afirma que Pdvsa ‘debe defender’ al Presidente”,
El Universal, 3 March 2012. Crisis Group interviews, Caracas,
19-28 March 2012.
145
The largest components of the package include a housing
program (Gran Misión Vivienda) to build two million units by
2017 (www.misionvivienda.gob.ve). The Gran Misión Saber
y Trabajo (knowledge and employment) aims to generate
2,800,000 new jobs by 2019, reportedly in the context of Chinese investment (www.venezueladeverdad.gob.ve/content/
gran-misi%C3%B3n-saber-y-trabajo-venezuela). The “Mothers
of the Neighbourhood” mission (Gran Misión Madres del Bar-
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
of Venezuelan homes, involving some 8.5 million citizens
(30 per cent of the population), benefit from the programs.146 The massive increase in spending, much of it
channelled through parallel budgets beyond scrutiny even
of ministries, let alone the public, has contributed to a
sharp rise in the national debt.147
A new labour law, too, is seen as a means of drumming
up election support. Anticipated some years back, a draft
had been stalled by the ruling party in parliament: as the
country’s largest employer, the government would incur
the highest costs were the law to pass. In April 2012,
though, Chávez announced he was preparing a new bill
while receiving treatments in Cuba; at the end of the month
he signed it into force, without debate in parliament or
opposition input.148 It reduces working hours, increases
the minimum wage, limits outsourcing and gives workers
additional benefits.149 While this report does not assess
the value of either the new welfare programs or the labour
law, their timing and, in the case of the misiones, explicit
link to the election raise questions about the use of state
funds for partisan purposes.
rio) offers economic support and training to mothers in extreme
poverty (www.minmujer.gob.ve/madresdelbarrio). The “Elderly Love” mission (Gran Misión en Amor Mayor) caters to the
elderly poor. The “Sons and Daughters of Venezuela” mission
(Gran Misión Hijos e Hijas de Venezuela) seeks to combat extreme poverty (www.minci.gob.ve/infografias/67/210050/gran_
mision_hijos.html). Many existing missions are also perceived
to boost government’s support, including “Inside the Neighbourhood” (Misión Barrio Adentro), which offers free health
care to marginalised communities with the help of Cuban doctors; the Robinson mission (Misión Robinson), for literacy
training and the “Agro Mission” (Gran Misión Agro Venezuela),
to boost agricultural production and activities (http://gobierno
enlinea.gob.ve/home/
misiones.dot).
146
See, for example, “Crece dependencia económica de los venezolanos con el Estado”, El Universal, 25 January 2012.
147
Between 2010 and 2011, transfers to missions nearly doubled, from $4.5 billion to $8.5 billion. See “Venezuela’s PDVSA
triples contributions to state”, Reuters, 7 December 2011.
148
Chávez was able to introduce the legislation himself due to
an enabling law (ley habilitante) allowing the president to circumvent the legislature and issue decrees on a wide range of
social issues, including infrastructure, public services, transport,
development, citizen security and the socioeconomic system.
The law was passed in December 2010, ostensibly to allow an
adequate response by the president to an emergency situation
caused by heavy rains. The opposition argued that the real aim
was to push through Chávez’s policies while avoiding debate
he no longer so tightly controlled. “Venezuela: Chávez intenta
nuevamente gobernar por decreto”, BBC Mundo, 16 December
2010.
149
“Decreto con rango, valor y fuerza de ley orgánica del trabajo, los trabajadores y las trabajadoras”, no. 8938, 30 April 2012.
Page 17
Opposition politicians, governors in particular,150 also use
public resources for campaigning. A report by a respected
civil society group noted that during the 2010 parliamentary elections campaign, both Capriles in Miranda state
and Pablo Perez in Zulia state used their offices and resources to assist MUD candidates. Chavistas also point to
the large sums allegedly spent by opposition politicians
during the presidential primaries as an indication of the
economic muscle lined up against Chávez.151 However,
the same report noted the ruling party’s responsibility for
312 of 360 instances in which it concluded there had been
violations of regulations restricting the use of public office for campaigning and for 110 of 114 instances in which
it identified violations of the ban on use of state resources
for that purpose.152
The CNE has not made a serious effort to enforce rules
against such misuse,153 despite much evidence and opposition pressure.154 The electoral law and its own regulations provide it sanctions, notably fines, that could discourage overt violations. Action would send a message
that the CNE enforces the law equally and is committed, to
the extent possible, to levelling the electoral playing field.
150
Ojo Electoral, “Informe Final”, op. cit.
Crisis Group interview, pro-government analyst, Caracas, 24
March 2012.
152
Ojo Electoral, “Informe Final”, op. cit.
153
See regulation no. 6 of the LOPE, op. cit., particularly Articles 17-19, for rules prohibiting the use of state resources during
the campaign. Articles 31-45 detail sanctions. Sanctions are not
explicit for the use of state resources, but Article 33 provides for
fines of up to 7,000 tax units (at the 2011 rate, some 535,000
bolivares, almost $125,000) for infractions of its Article 5, which
includes propaganda paid for with public resources.
154
Crisis Group interview, opposition representatives to the
CNE, Caracas, 27 March 2012. “CNE rechazó investigación
contra Chávez”, Ultimas Noticias, 26 April 2012. During the
2006 elections observers reported that the CNE’s own prosecutors, responsible for monitoring the campaign, filed more than
1,000 accusations of violations, of which only 61 reached the
board, and none were acted on, despite lobbying from the opposition and civil society groups. Ojo Electoral. “Informe Final”,
op. cit., Annex 6.
151
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
IV. RISKS AHEAD
Uncertainty over the president’s health feeds fear of instability in connection with the election and illustrates the
government’s apparent lack of preparedness for a possible transition. Much is in play, given the power concentrated in the presidency and the deep polarisation between
the camps and in society. The easy availability of guns
and presence of politicised armed groups raise the prospect of violence – either independent of political leaders,
or with their quiet consent or even incitement – that, in
the absence of institutional mechanisms to manage conflict, could escalate.
While defeat in October, despite its efforts to unify and
moderate, would be demoralising for the opposition, it
would probably lack the stomach for another fight if the
vote was reasonably clean. Threats to the ruling party’s
power – either Chávez’s inability to contest the election
or an upset defeat of him or a replacement – pose a potentially greater danger. At stake for Chavistas is not only
the Bolivarian Revolution, with the gains they perceive it
has delivered. Some also risk losing allegedly substantial
financial interests tied to their power; others face allegations of drug trafficking. While the lack of transparency
regarding President Chávez’s health and the workings of
his inner circle and the armed forces complicate any effort
to forecast what lies ahead, a number of scenarios that
could lead to instability are possible. These include a suspension of the election or a rejection of its results; in either
case the government might be tempted to exploit its control of key institutions, in particular the judiciary, sparking
opposition protests.
Many in the country, including in the Capriles team, consider a major breakdown unlikely. Brazen circumvention
of the constitution would probably require army backing
and reasonably broad popular support, neither of which
would be sure; nor would it enjoy regional support. But
Venezuela faces uncertain months, and a major and violent political crisis cannot be discounted entirely.
A. THE RISK OF VIOLENCE
1. A polarised and violent society
Politics and society are polarised, with deep distrust between supporters and opponents of Chávez and his Bolivarian Revolution.155 Before 2006, the president’s supporters could perhaps argue that his accumulation of power
and attacks on opposition politicians and media networks
were at least partly driven by their radical, on occasion
155
For additional information on polarisation, see Crisis Group
Report, Violence and Politics in Venezuela, op. cit., pp. 10-11.
Page 18
unconstitutional, attempts to oust him. But in recent
years, Chavismo, with its exclusionary discourse, discriminatory policies and narrowing of political space, has
been the main divisive force. While elements in the opposition, together with some private media networks, still
use inflammatory language and insult the president, its
dominant stream, typified by Capriles and the MUD, has
– officially at least – toned down its discourse.
Guns in civilian hands have proliferated, contributing to
unprecedented levels of criminal violence. The national
homicide rate today is among the world’s highest, on par
even with some war zones. According to the Venezuelan
Violence Observatory, an NGO that tracks violent incidents,
2011 was the deadliest in the country’s history, with over
19,000 homicides.156 The government contests those figures, but acknowledged in January that 2011 was no improvement on 2010 when, after years of not publishing
statistics, it announced a homicide rate of 48 per 100,000
inhabitants, well above the Latin American average.157
The Chávez years have also seen the proliferation of armed
groups that politicians could use to stoke violence or that
could take to the streets on their own. Particularly notorious are the colectivos, which operate mostly in the 23 de
Enero district of Caracas.158 They claim to engage primarily in social and cultural activities, but most are armed
and some dole out – without accountability – vigilante
justice in areas that, in the absence of police, they control.159 Estimates of the number of such groups range be-
156
“El 2011 ha sido el año más violento de la historia nacional”, Observatorio Venezolano de la Violencia, 27 December
2011. Based on Venezuela’s 29 million inhabitants, it calculates a homicide rate of 67 per 100,000, almost double that of
neighboring Colombia, whose rate is 33.4, even with an internal armed conflict; see the latest UN Office of Drugs and
Crime (UNODC) homicide statistics available, those for 2010,
in “2011 Global Study on Homicide”, 6 October 2011. For
more detail on the violence, see Crisis Group Report, Violence
and Politics in Venezuela, op. cit. pp. 3-9.
157
“El Aissami: No hemos logrado disminuir la tasa de homicidios”, El Universal, 16 January 2012. The UNODC figures for
2010 give average homicide rates per 100,000 inhabitants as 49
in Venezuela, 18.1 in Mexico, 33.4 in Colombia, 22.7 in Brazil
and 5.5 in Argentina, “2011 Global Study on Homicide”, op.
cit. Although figures constantly change, a 2009 report by the
OAS’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights put Latin
America’s rate at 25.6 – one of the highest in the world. “Report on citizen security and human rights”, 31 December 2009.
158
For detailed analysis on the colectivos, see Crisis Group Report, Violence and Politics in Venezuela, op. cit., pp. 17-19. The
colectivos have their roots in the urban guerrilla movements of
the 1960s and 1970s but re-emerged during the Chávez years.
159
Colectivos expelled what they perceived as repressive police
from their neighborhood. According to some sources, they receive arms and patronage from high-level officials. Crisis Group
interview, analyst, Caracas, 20 March 2012. See also “PROFI-
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
tween twenty and 30.160 All profess loyalty to the Bolivarian Revolution.161 Government efforts to rein them in
have been at best half-hearted and usually only taken after particularly egregious incidents.162 Some colectivos
appear to enjoy the patronage of senior officials, even if
not entirely under their control. At the very least, the government’s ambiguity towards them contributes to their
recent growth.
These groups have attacked institutions linked to the opposition, most notably Globovisión, claiming that its coverage of the 23 de Enero and the colectivos was denigrating and misleading.163 While they have no official role in
the Plan República – the election security plan – they
could intimidate voters or obstruct the work of opposition
agents in areas under their command.164 That the opposition held its primaries peacefully in the 23 de Enero set a
positive precedent but does not rule out possible trouble
in October.
A second set of groups that could respond if the ruling
party’s power was threatened are the militias, initially established by Chávez in 2005 as the Guardia Territorial165
LAXIA: 500 ‘guardianes revolucionarios’ juran que defenderán
La Piedrita”, El Nacional, 19 Febrary 2012.
160
La Piedrita, Alexis Vive, Tupamaros and the Coordinadora
Simón Bolivar are currently the most prominent. Some are said
to have branches in other parts of Venezuela. Crisis Group interview, colectivo leader, 23 de Enero, Caracas, 24 March 2012.
161
Some try to portray themselves as the guardians of the revolution and criticise the government. La Piedrita’s leader, Valentin Santana, questioned the commitment of some officials to
socialist ideals. “In Venezuela, armed groups that pledge allegiance to Hugo Chavez rule over slum fiefdoms”, InterAmerican Security Watch, 30 April 2012.
162
Some recent events, such as the circulation of photos of
children carrying automatic rifles in front of a La Piedrita wall
painting in January 2012 and the alleged participation by La
Piedrita gunmen in the killing of an interior and justice ministry
escort the same month, have forced the government to react.
Interior and Justice Minister Aissami protested the photos, and
Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz announced a judicial investigation. Piedrita leader Valentín Santana has been the subject of an arrest warrant since 2008 but is said to be move
freely in 23 de Enero; “Niños con pistolas”, TalCualDigital, 30
January 2012; “Culpan a “La Piedrita” por muerte de escolta”,
Ultimas Noticias, 3 May 2012; also, “Reaparece Valentín Santana en inauguración de Casa Hogar para niños”, Noticiero
Digital, 3 March 2012.
163
“In Venezuela, armed groups that pledge allegiance to Hugo
Chavez rule over slum fiefdoms”, op. cit. In August 2009, an
armed group led by the now deceased colectivo leader Lina
Ron, invaded its premises and hurled teargas grenades. “Motorizados armados y comandados por Lina Ron asaltaron sede de
Globovisión”, Globovisión, 3 August 2009.
164
Crisis Group interview, 23 de Enero, Caracas, 24 March 2012.
165
For further details on the militias, see Crisis Group Report,
Violence and Politics, op. cit., pp. 26-27.
Page 19
and often referred to as his private army. Tens of thousands of citizens, among them public employees, have
been enlisted, trained and incorporated into a body that
officially is a fifth component of the armed forces. The
militias are politicised, with an explicit goal to defend the
revolution against not only external, but also internal, enemies.166 Their numbers and firepower are in dispute, though
minimal compared to the regular armed forces.167 Unlike
the colectivos, they are integrated into Plan República and
are to secure polling centres in October, a role that worries some opposition quarters.168 However, they also secured polling stations under Plan República for the 2010
parliamentary elections and this year’s opposition primaries without major upset. Indeed, organisers of the primaries proclaimed the success of the security plan then as a
positive precedent for October.169
Thus far, political violence, like that against Globovisión,
has been only sporadic. Past election campaigns have not
been marred by the killings that have overshadowed polls
in Colombia or Guatemala.170 However, the harsh rhetoric
of the president’s camp, particularly personal attacks on
Capriles and portrayal of the opposition as violent or plotting a coup, are dangerous. Chavistas – whether PSUV
activists or colectivo members – may interpret it as encouragement to violence or believe that thuggery would
serve the party’s interests or even have their leaders’
blessing. While groups like the colectivos probably have
little capacity for much beyond localised attacks and are
certainly no match for the armed forces, violence, once
unleashed, could be costly to check.
The polarisation, the weapons circulating, the burgeoning
criminal violence and the armed groups of overtly political
nature often operating beyond the state’s control, combined with the deterioration of institutional conflict resolution mechanisms, raise the spectre of election-related
violence. Political leaders should renounce publicly,
forcefully and frequently the use of violence around elections. They should make clear that the campaign must be
peaceful and both candidates permitted to canvass for
votes throughout the country without personal risk.
166
Ley Orgánica de la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana
(2009), Article 44; also see www.milicia.mil.ve.
167
Crisis Group interview, military expert, Caracas, 2 March
2011.
168
Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 28 March 2012.
169
Crisis Group email correspondence and interview, MUD officials, Caracas, 22 March, 14 June 2012.
170
See Crisis Group Latin America Briefing Nº24, Guatemala’s Elections: Clean Polls, Dirty Politics, 16 June 2011; and
Latin America Report Nº37, Cutting the Link Between Crime
and Local Politics: Colombia’s Elections, 25 July 2011.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
2. Sparks of Campaign Violence
Indeed, the preliminary stages of the campaign have not
been entirely violence free. An isolated but serious incident
took place during a Capriles rally in the west Caracas
neighbourhood of Cotiza on 4 March 2012, when shots
were fired into the air amid scuffles between Chavistas
and opposition supporters.171 Capriles himself was cornered with a small group of campaign staff, two of whom
were wounded, including Ismael Garcia, the son of a
prominent opposition legislator.172 Despite witnesses’
claims that local PSUV activists had fired the shots,173
government officials called the events a “provocation” by
Capriles, because he entered a Chavista stronghold to
campaign before the official period. Interior and Justice
Minister Tarek El Aissami blamed Miranda state security
officials, who provided security for Capriles, for the shooting.174 He announced investigations that to date have had
no result.
Within the opposition camp, interpretations vary as to
whether the incident was centrally directed or a local initiative by PSUV activists. Despite Garcia’s injury, most
agree that Capriles’s life was not in danger. Some argue
that it was a warning to discourage his campaigning in
other poor, traditionally Chavista areas of Caracas. Others
see it as part of the government’s attempt to portray the
opposition as destabilising and violent. Still others argue
it showed the extent to which the Capriles campaign, especially his face-to-face campaigning in Chavista bastions, has rattled the ruling party.175 The incident may simply
illustrate the dangers involved when radical loyalists take
action into their own hands. While thus far it is the only
serious violence, the formal campaign has not yet begun,
and the ingredients for a repeat exist.
Shortly after the violence in Cotiza, Chávez announced
on live television that information had surfaced regarding
a plot to assassinate the opposition candidate and that security forces had informed Capriles’s camp.176 The Capri-
171
Cotiza is part of Libertador municipality, governed by Chavista campaign director Jorge Rodríguez.
172
Ismael García, the father of the wounded, is candidate for
mayor of Libertador municipality.
173
PPT member and municipal councillor Andrea Tavares identified the shooters as PSUV activists. According to another
source, a local PSUV activist had been handing out weapons.
Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 22 March 2012.
174
“Two wounded in Venezuela election violence”, Latin American Herald Tribune, 5 March 2012. Aissami also accused Miranda state police of operating outside their jurisdiction without
authorisation.
175
Crisis Group interview, opposition staff and diplomats, Caracas, 19-28 March 2012.
176
“Advertencias Sospechosas”, TalCualDigital, 20 March
2012.
Page 20
les team denied this, saying that it first heard of the matter
during the president’s TV appearance and noting that
there appears to have been no official investigation.177
Capriles’s staff again interpreted the supposed assassination plot as either an effort at intimidation or an attempt
to paint the opposition as violent. It, as well as the Cotiza
incident, they said, have raised their awareness of potential security threats to the candidate and provide further
justification for using Miranda state rather than national
security forces for his protection.178
B. THE RISK OF POSTPONEMENT
Each Chávez visit to Cuba sparks a flurry of speculation
as to what would happen were his cancer to prevent him
contesting the election. With neither an obvious heir nor a
clear succession mechanism within the PSUV, a sudden
deterioration in the president’s condition could leave his
party struggling to find a substitute, or open it up to an
internal power struggle. The party might then seek to delay the election in order to gain time to select – perhaps
with the mediation of the newly-appointed Council of
State – and then raise the profile of a new candidate. It
also might be tempted to press for a delay if opinion polls
were to indicate the prospect of losing the election.
The government has suspended polls before. In 2004, it
used a pliant CNE to suspend the recall referendum, which
opinion polls indicated Chávez would lose.179 The extra
months allowed him to drum up support, mostly through
massive public spending, and eventually win. A delay this
year might deflate the opposition, potentially leaving it
without adequate resources to fund the extended campaign. Some Chavistas have openly floated the option of
a suspension. In late April, the governor of Portuguesa
177
“They called a meeting but didn’t say what for. The meeting
did not take place”. Crisis Group interview, MUD representative, 23 March 2012.
178
MUD executives say the Capriles team has decided to refuse
national state security and rely on Miranda state forces. One
said, “we need better security in the campaign. What happened
in Cotiza was not an attempt at murder. Had they wanted to kill
him, they would have. It showed us the danger. We need to
look after him better …. We don’t like having people round
him he doesn’t trust. He’s using state security from Miranda”,
Crisis Group interview, Caracas, March 2012.
179
On 12 September 2003, the CNE invalidated some three
million signatures in support of a recall election, arguing these
had been collected before the mid-point of Chávez’s six-year
presidential term. In late November 2003, a new 3.4 million
names were submitted. The CNE validated less than two million, well below the required threshold of approximately 2.4
million. Following a lengthy re-verification, over 2.5 million
were finally authenticated, paving the way for the August 2004
recall referendum. “Observing the Venezuela presidential recall
referendum”, Carter Center, February 2005.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
state, Wilmer Castro Soteldo, for example, was quoted as
touting in a workshop for regional ruling party campaign
leaders, three possible scenarios: “a weakened Chávez,
without Chávez, or with suspended elections”.180
Postponement would not be easy and would likely carry
political costs. The ruling party is invested in the 7 October date: it is the focus of both its campaign and its social
programs, senior officials repeatedly promise that the election will take place then, and Chávez has now registered
as a candidate. Pushing back the vote might make it appear weak or nervous and diminish its appeal to swing
voters. Moreover, no obvious legal pretext exists. The
president’s term ends on 10 January 2013, and a suspension beyond then would be unconstitutional. The CNE
formally announced its electoral calendar and set the 7
October date in March, so even a delay of weeks now requires some legal justification.181 Chávez’s inability to
run would not in itself be sufficient: the electoral law allows parties to switch candidates up to ten days before the
election or – in the event a candidate “dies, resigns or is
physically or mentally incapable” of contesting – even at
the last minute.182 Inability of the ruling party to agree on
a candidate would not require a delay; Capriles and others
would still be contesting.
The political risks and lack of obvious legal grounds make
a delay difficult but do not rule one out. The CNE might
be reluctant to harm its reputation, in Venezuela and
abroad, by suspending for spurious reasons, but it could
face intense pressure. The Supreme Court, which is
known to be closer to Chávez and often appears overtly
partisan,183 might offer another path for a delay or at least
Page 21
be available to provide judicial cover for the CNE. A last
option might be to manufacture major unrest through
groups like the colectivos and declare a state of emergency that could perhaps be used to postpone the vote. But
although Chavistas have a sufficient National Assembly
majority for this, it would be a desperate strategy and appears remote. It would probably require army support,
which would be uncertain (see below). Moreover political
rights, including suffrage, cannot be suspended even for
internal disturbances, so in itself a state of emergency
might not legally justify postponing the election.184
C. ACCEPTANCE OF RESULTS
1. Chavismo
If his health does not force him to stand down, President
Chávez continues to be the favourite to win the October
election. Predicting the ruling party’s response to an upset
defeat at the ballot box is difficult, however, given the
opacity of the president’s inner circle and officials’ reluctance to talk to outsiders. Chávez has promised repeatedly
to recognise the result and cede power if he loses.185 He
also accepted defeat during the 2007 constitutional referendum and in a number of important gubernatorial contests.
But losing the presidency could be different. Many of his
other statements, including one in which he threatened,
shortly after the 2010 parliamentary elections, “violent
revolution led by the revolutionary military and the Venezuelan people” should the opposition win a future vote,
have been far less conciliatory.186 Those around Chávez,
including those either accused of involvement in drug
trafficking or whose reportedly significant financial inter-
180
“Con Chávez, sin él o suspensión de elecciones, los tres escenarios del PSUV”, analítica.com, 25 April 2012. Foreign
Minister Maduro dismissed the speculation, saying Chávez was
recovering and preparing for a great victory. However, several
journalists who attended the meeting said they had heard the
governor speak of the three scenarios. “Maduro pide acabar con
especulaciones sobre la salud de Chávez”, El Nacional, 4 May
2012. “A modest concession to reality”, The Economist, 5 May
2012.
181
The LOPE provides no obvious route for a delay: with provisions only for cancelling results after the election (Articles
215-226), rather than defining conditions under which elections
can be postponed.
182
LOPE, Article 62. It places no deadline on this substitution
and simply requires the electoral authorities to make every effort to inform voters of the change. If the substitution is made
too late to adjust voting machines, votes cast for the original
candidate count for the substitute. Each party can set its own
rules for determining who contests an election on its ticket.
183
In a swearing-in ceremony, Supreme Court President Luisa
Estella Morales compared judges to soldiers of justice tasked
with protecting the revolutionary project. “Presidenta del TSJ:
“Nos duele cada vez que un juez falla”, Globovisión, 16 May
2012. Earlier, she called for creation of a revolutionary judici-
ary. “Usted lo Vio”, Globovisión, 8 February 2008. Former Supreme Court Judge Eladio Aponte, dismissed due to alleged
connections to drug kingpin Walid Makled, made extensive allegations regarding the government’s interference with judicial
decisions. See “Las declaraciones completas del ex magistrado
Eladio Aponte”, 6to Poder, 18 April 2012.
184
The constitution and the Ley Orgánica sobre Estados de Excepción allow four types of state of emergency: alarm, economic emergency and internal or external disturbance. None permit
violation of the suffrage right. Article 13 of the Ley Orgánica
notes that a state of internal disturbance (estado de conmoción
interior) can be declared in the event of “internal conflict that
seriously puts in danger the security of the Nation, of its citizens and of its institutions”. It can only last up to 90 days and
be extended for another 90. Article 27 specifies that more than
half the legislature must approve any state of emergency. See
also interview with pro-opposition CNE member Vicente Diaz
in “Suspensión de elecciones equivale a un golpe de Estado”,
El Universal, 13 May 2012.
185
“Hugo Chávez registra su candidatura oficial a la presidencia de Venezuela”, CNN, 11 June 2012.
186
See, for example, “Aló Presidente”, no. 366, Miranda, 31
October 2010.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
ests are tied to the status quo, might also relinquish power
only reluctantly.
Once announced by the CNE, results would be difficult to
reject, especially as that body is regarded as both competent and pro-Chávez. It always informs parties of results
before announcing them publicly,187 which could offer a
window for the ruling party to press for delay of the public
announcement. It might then seek – perhaps through the
loyal Supreme Court – to contest the result, or to coerce
the CNE into undertaking a recount or revising its tally.188
The opposition would have a clear picture of the real results from its own parallel vote tabulation, so brazen manipulation would not pass unnoticed. Without independent observers, the MUD could face difficulties making
the case, but national and regional condemnation would
still be likely. Nor is it certain that the CNE, with an eye
to its international reputation, would bow to pressure. The
hours between the closing of polls and the official announcement of the result would be crucial, and ideally, in
the unlikely event the president loses, those with influence over him – particularly the Brazilians and Cubans –
would persuade him to bow out.
Another scenario would see the ruling party provoke instability, in an attempt to cling to power through a state
of emergency. Much like stoking unrest before the vote,
however, such a strategy would depend on army support.
It would also hinge on a reasonable level of coherence
within Chavismo and party unity behind blatantly unconstitutional acts, neither of which are guaranteed. Blatant
circumvention of the constitution might also erode the
government’s popular support, and again, it could be expected to result in strong regional condemnation.
The danger of violent protests by Chavistas – either independent of political leaders or with their quiet backing –
cannot be ruled out even if the president were to stand
down. Serious unrest might allow him to present himself
as the only leader capable of restoring order. Responses
of colectivo members varied when asked how they would
react to an opposition win. One said, “here people won’t
accept that Chávez loses. They will go into the streets. The
opposition would kill us for what we have done here”.
Another said, “if Chávez loses, things will be difficult.
But people would accept results. They wouldn’t attack
the CNE or come out and defend Chávez. The colectivos
are radical, but in the end Venezuelans have to live to-
187
Crisis Group interview, CNE representatives, Caracas, 23
March 2012.
188
The electoral law does not provide for recounts, so such action would likely be without legal basis.
Page 22
gether”.189 The militias, too, could resist a Chávez defeat,
though would be likely to take their cue from political
leaders, and, observers say, they lack the esprit de corps
necessary for joint actions.190 Civil action, and perhaps
even violent protests, by the colectivos, militias and other
radical Chavistas would require delicate handling by a
Capriles government that has promised to rule inclusively.
Were Chávez to accept defeat, he could perhaps still use a
loyal legislature to strip power from the presidency in
the months before Capriles assumes office. His room to
manoeuver would be limited, however, as Chavistas no
longer enjoy a sufficient majority to revise organic laws
or pass another enabling law that would give the outgoing
president the power to legislate by decree. Moreover, a
defeated Chávez would have considerably less political
capital with which to influence institutions and even his
own party, whose members would presumably be looking
out for their own interests and adapting to a reconfigured
political landscape.
Crucial in informing Chávez’s behaviour would be regional players such as Brazil and Colombia, as well as his
Bolivarian Alliance for Peoples of Our America (ALBA)
allies, especially Cuba.191 Colombia’s president, Juan Manuel Santos, in contrast to his predecessor, has been pragmatic in dealings with Caracas and may have leverage,
not least based on the countries’ mutual commercial interests. More important is Brazil, now the major regional
power. While ideologically closer to the Chávez government than the Colombians are, its relations with Venezuela are also driven largely by economic interests. Brasilia
and Bogotá will want to avoid upheaval in the region at
all costs, particularly in a common neighbour. They
would eye warily any potentially destabilising action by
Chávez or his allies, presumably cautioning them privately
against violation of the constitution.192
189
Crisis Group interviews, 23 de Enero, Caracas, 22, 24 March
2012.
190
Crisis Group telephone interview, former general, 12 June
2012. Many members register under pressure, for convenience
or for the money earned by attending the trainings, rather than
conviction. Crisis Group interview, international NGO representative, Caracas, 22 November 2010.
191
ALBA stands for Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de
nuestra América. Its members are: Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Dominica, San Vincent and the Grenadines and Antigua and Barbuda.
192
In an April interview, Santos stated: “What would hurt Colombia and the whole region more is an unstable Venezuela”,
“Colombia’s President Talks with Time about Castro, Capitalism, and his Country’s Comeback”, Time, 12 April 2012. He
added, “at this moment, he [President Chávez] is a factor of
stability”, which upset the Venezuelan opposition. Asked if
Chávez’s illness could threaten the elections, Brazilian Foreign
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
Brazilian and Colombian positions would also likely
guide UNASUR, another player that can influence behaviour in Caracas, even if the appointment of new General
Secretary Ali Rodríguez, who served in various government positions under President Chávez, may make it less
inclined to do so. The Inter-American Democratic Charter, which Venezuela remains party to, would be a factor
encouraging regional action should the government obviously contravene its provisions.193
The ALBA countries, bound by ideological ties to the Chávez government, are different. Some, especially Cuba,
depend heavily on Venezuelan oil.194 Havana, which supports the Venezuelan revolution with experts on welfare
programs, doctors and other medical staff, as well as, reportedly, thousands of intelligence and defence advisers,195 would perhaps be the likeliest to maintain support
for the Chávez government. Were Chavismo, however,
defeated, and neighbours to call on the government to respect the result or condemn – in public or private – an attempt to hold onto power, the Cuban leadership might
conclude pragmatically that the island’s interests would
not be served by binding it to an illegitimate regime with
an uncertain future.196 Cuba has tolerated the fall of allies
in the past,197 even if the stakes are higher in Venezuela.
Capriles has said that he would not sever ties to Havana,
but preferential oil prices would be reviewed.198
Minister Antonio Patriota predicted that rules would be respected, “Brasil sigue de cerca situación en Venezuela por
enfermedad de Chávez, dice canciller”, Noticiero Digital, 17
May 2012.
193
The Charter was first invoked in 2002 to support Chávez
and condemn the coup attempt. “Inter American Charter, Mandated to the OAS at the Third Summit of the Americas”, 24
September 2002.
194
According to press reports, Venezuela sends Cuba an estimated 115,000 barrels of oil a day, which reportedly corresponds to around two-thirds of its consumption. “If Hugo
goes”, The Economist, 7 July 2011.
195
Around 5,000 Cubans are said to work in the various organs
of Venezuelan intelligence and counter-intelligence. Crisis
Group interview, security expert, Caracas, 3 March 2011. Also
see “Cable sobre cómo los servicios de inteligencia cubana tienen acceso directo a Chávez”, El País, 30 November 2010.
196
Raul Castro is gradually opening Cuba to foreign investment
and liberalising its economy. Too tight an embrace of a defeated Chávez in an election crisis could damage his hopes for
achieving further regional integration. Crisis Group telephone
interviews, analysts, 23, 25 May 2012.
197
In 1990 Fidel Castro reportedly persuaded Daniel Ortega to
accept electoral defeat in Nicaragua.
198
“Las propuestas políticas, económicas y sociales de Capriles
Radonski para Venezuela”, Noticias 24, 3 April 2012.
Page 23
2. The opposition
Capriles has not promised to accept the election result, so
as to avoid, in the words of a sympathetic observer, “giving CNE a blank cheque”.199 But despite government propaganda alleging otherwise, few believe he and his team
would not acknowledge defeat if the vote is reasonably
free. The MUD worked with the CNE throughout its primaries, which makes its rejection of the October result all
the less likely. More probable is that defeat would demoralise it, threaten the opposition’s unity and perhaps even
accelerate the exodus of opposition-aligned citizens from
the country.
Were the election stolen, with manipulation blatant and a
coerced CNE complicit, protests or even civil disobedience
would be more likely. Potential calls for calm by Capriles
– who would probably not exercise complete control over
the diverse opposition factions – would not necessarily
keep people off the streets. Some protestors could be
armed and, again, their actions could escalate, particularly
if met by Chavistas.
Given Chávez’s physical frailty, his re-election would not
necessarily equate to another six years of Chavismo. If at
some point in the next few years the president’s health
forced him to stand down, the constitution would require
an election for a replacement within a month, thus giving
the opposition another opportunity at the presidential palace.200 Crucial for its prospects would be to again offer a
single candidate and moderate discourse. Changing its current position of unity, moderation and respect for the constitution, even if defeated in October, would be unwise.
D. THE MILITARY’S ROLE
The military has a pivotal role in the coming months. It is
responsible, through Plan República, for securing the elections, and in the event of an upset or early signs of an upset,
the government’s response might well hinge on its stance.
Over recent years, the armed forces have undergone a
profound political alignment.201 Targeted promotions and
199
Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 21 March 2012.
Article 233 of the constitution specifies that if the president
dies or resigns within the first four years of his term, the vice
president assumes power and a new election must be held within 30 days. If it happens within the last two years of a term, the
vice president serves the remainder of the term. Should the
president die or resign after winning the polls but before assuming office, elections also need to be held within 30 days, but the
president of the National Assembly takes over in the interim
rather than the vice president.
201
In 2008, the organic law of the armed forces converted the
military into the “Bolivarian National Armed Forces”. “Fatherland, socialism or death”, later converted into “Socialist father200
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
retirement policies circumventing internal rules have removed hundreds of real or perceived opponents of the
president from the upper ranks, leaving a top brass widely
seen as loyal to him.202 Not only do a number of generals
owe their rank to Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution, but their
futures appear bound to his rule. Some, like the defence
minister and head of the Strategic Operational Command,
General Henry Rangel Silva, are suspected in some quarters of ties to organised crime and drug trafficking.203
Rangel Silva declared in 2010 that the armed forces
“were married to this [the Bolivarian] project”.204
While the overt loyalty of the defence minister bodes
poorly for the military’s respect of a transition, he has retracted his earlier statements and insisted the armed forces
would respect the results of the presidential election.205
Senior generals also have recently been more circumspect
in public utterances. The Capriles team, for its part, has
studiously avoided offending high-ranking officers, continually expressing its respect for the institution and its
hierarchy.206
land or death”, became the official salute. Ley Orgánica de la
Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana (2008). For details, see
Crisis Group Report, Violence and Politics, op. cit., pp. 23-26.
202
See “Informe Annual 2010-2011”, Asociación Civil Control
Ciudadano, 16 March 2010, pp. 74-75. Crisis Group interview,
security expert, Caracas, 22 March 2012.
203
A number of senior government officials, including Rangel
Silva, have been on the U.S. “Narcotics Kingpins” list since
2008. The government has vigorously defended the defence
minister, calling U.S. action part of an “agenda of permanent
aggression against Venezuela”. “Henry Rangel Silva, Chavez
ally, named Venezuela defense minister”, Huffington Post, 7
January 2012; “Treasury targets Venezuelan government officials supporting the FARC”; U.S. Department of the Treasury,
12 September 2008; “An overview of the Foreign Narcotics
Kingpin Designation Act”, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Alleged drug kingpin Walid Makled, captured in 2010 and currently on trial in Venezuela, claimed that he had had 40 active
Venezuelan generals on his pay roll. “Walid Makled habla en
‘El Nacional’: ‘Hasta regalé carros ultimo modelo a Diputados
de la AN’”, Noticias 24, 10 October 2010. In March 2012, former Supreme Court Judge Eladio Aponte echoed the latter’s
allegations. “Aponte implica a funcionarios del Gobierno nacional en narcotráfico”, El Universal, 18 April 2012. See also,
“US Sees ‘Worrying Trend’ in Venezuela Drug Trafficking”,
InSight Crime, 17 April 2012.
204
“En las FFAA nos casamos con el proyecto de país del Comandante Hugo Chávez”, Noticias 24, 8 November 2010. Also
see “Declaraciones del Gral Rangel Silva a ÚN”, video, 10 November 2010, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sj9BBf16kc.
205
“Rangel Silva se retracta: FAN acatará resultados del 7-0”,
Barinas 2012, 11 February 2012; “Min-Defensa: La Fuerza
Armada reconocerá los resultados del 7-O”, Correo del Orinoco, 4 March 2012.
206
A senior MUD campaign staffer said, “we know that they
know how much we respect the army as an institution. We
Page 24
Foreseeing the military’s intentions is challenging: strict
presidential control, especially over the top ranks and allegedly enforced by Cuban advisers,207 means that few
within its ranks talk to outsiders. None would speak with
Crisis Group, and even specialists described it as a “black
box”.208 But neither they nor the MUD leadership believe
that troops who secure polling stations are likely to hinder
opposition supporters or facilitate rigging. The principle
concern is the extent to which the armed forces would be
prepared to throw their weight behind any attempt by the
Chávez government to hold onto power illegally. What
actions would it permit or support? And what for the generals or their troops would be a step too far?
Various factors could enter into play. First would be the
situation of President Chávez himself. Were his illness to
force him to play a lesser role or retire from politics, individuals or factions in the army – much like those in the
ruling party – would likely adapt fast to a new political
landscape, seeking patronage from those whose stars appeared to be rising. While much would depend on the cohesion of the ruling party post-Chávez, an analyst said,
without him, the top brass could “atomise – not fragment,
but atomise”.209
Secondly, generals will presumably assess the strength of
their command, the degree of their control over it and potential defiance from other military factions. The armed
forces are reportedly far from monolithic, with discontent
within, and even divisions between, its branches and ranks.
Many, particularly in the middle and lower ranks, allegedly resist government meddling, and oppose measures
like the creation of parallel armed militias and the influx
of Cuban advisers.210 These levels may have suffered less
overt politicisation; generals loyal to the Bolivarian Revolution cannot necessarily count on the unconditional
backing of their troops.211 And the navy and air force are
allegedly less partisan than the army, National Guard and
militias.
don’t have direct contact, but we are in touch with them”. Crisis Group interview, Caracas, 27 March 2012.
207
Crisis Group interview, security expert, Caracas, 3 March
2011.
208
Crisis Group interviews, military and security specialists,
Caracas, 19-28 March 2012; international expert, by telephone,
Caracas, 5 June 2012.
209
Crisis Group interview, military specialist, Caracas, 24
March 2012; fragmentation was used as meaning the division
of the military leadership into factions, atomisation as every
general acting for himself.
210
Crisis Group interviews, former general, Caracas, 28 February 2011; security expert, Caracas, 2 March 2012.
211
In 2002, it was lieutenants through colonels who refused the
generals’ orders and frustrated the opposition coup.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
The scale of popular resistance might also be decisive in
deciding military support. Standing by if the government
delayed elections for a few weeks would be one thing;
condoning its rejection or suppression of results, quelling
opposition protests in the streets, or even seizing power to
ensure a continuation of Chavismo something else entirely. Few believe that the armed forces as a whole would be
comfortable – or even sufficiently coherent – to play the
latter roles, which does not preclude the dangerous possibility of internal splits.212 The positions of Venezuela’s
regional allies would inform generals’ choices, too. Cuba
is important, but Brazil and Colombia also matter, and
neither would welcome blatant violations of constitutional order that could spark disorder.
Risks aside, the lack of information regarding the military’s thinking is itself a principle source of the dangerous
uncertainty overhanging Venezuela. Its top ranks, should
clarify publicly their commitment to the constitution and
pledge to respect the result of the October election.
Page 25
V. CONCLUSION
Lack of clarity over Chávez’s health strains politics only days
before the official start of the campaign and complicates
predictions, as do the contradictions inherent in the national polity. “We talk”, an MUD leader told Crisis Group,
“Venezuelans talk even across divides and amid the polarisation”.213 Perhaps this pragmatism will allow them to navigate the deep divisions. Perhaps if Chávez wins in October
– which if his health allows remains probable – the additional time to prepare would make an eventual succession, whenever it comes, less volatile. Or perhaps his absence, or diminished influence, could stimulate dynamics
in which calmer, less divisive, currents surface – especially if regional powers press factions to accommodate.
Still, Venezuela looks likely to experience tense months
ahead. In the event of an electoral upset or further deterioration of his health, it is not easy to picture the president
or his allies handing over power to a man they consistently call a majunche (low life). Many around Chávez are
accustomed to the benefits of office; some may fear legal
consequences without him in power; millions of citizens
benefit from the social programs; poor neighbourhoods
look back to repression in the pre-Chávez era with trepidation. Much is at stake for all of them. Few entirely trust
the promises of the Capriles team, let alone of less compromising opposition elements, to avoid purges or retribution and leave social programs intact. Nor is it clear at
what point Chavista bending of rules would pose an immediate threat to stability or become a step too far for
parts of the military, Latin American leaders or the Venezuelan population. The ruling party could find itself playing a game of chicken with Venezuela’s stability, potentially pushing boundaries too far, provoking unrest, and
then struggling to draw back.
Beyond October’s elections, the president’s cancer lays
bare the country’s fragility and its ill-preparedness for a
potential transition. He divides opinion at home and abroad:
to some a hero who has spread oil wealth to the marginalised poor; to others a treacherous populist who has hollowed out democracy. Whatever the truth, if President
Chávez becomes too sick to remain in office, what he
does in the months before and after the election will
shape his legacy. Ignore the constitution to preserve power for his allies and thus risk plunging Venezuela into
turmoil, and he will reinforce the crudest caricatures of
his detractors; respect rules, cede power if he is too ill to
govern and press his allies to respect an orderly transition,
and history may view his rule more kindly.
Caracas/Bogotá/Brussels, 26 June 2012
212
Crisis Group interviews, military specialist, 22 March 2012;
former general, by telephone, 12 June 2012.
213
Crisis Group interview, MUD campaign staff member, Caracas, 23 March 2012.
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
APPENDIX A
MAP OF VENEZUELA
Page 26
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
Page 27
APPENDIX B
ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP
The International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation, with some
130 staff members on five continents, working through
field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and
resolve deadly conflict.
Crisis Group’s approach is grounded in field research. Teams
of political analysts are located within or close by countries
at risk of outbreak, escalation or recurrence of violent conflict. Based on information and assessments from the field, it
produces analytical reports containing practical recommendations targeted at key international decision-takers. Crisis
Group also publishes CrisisWatch, a twelve-page monthly
bulletin, providing a succinct regular update on the state of
play in all the most significant situations of conflict or potential conflict around the world.
Crisis Group’s reports and briefing papers are distributed
widely by email and made available simultaneously on the
website, www.crisisgroup.org. Crisis Group works closely
with governments and those who influence them, including
the media, to highlight its crisis analyses and to generate
support for its policy prescriptions.
The Crisis Group Board – which includes prominent figures
from the fields of politics, diplomacy, business and the media
– is directly involved in helping to bring the reports and
recommendations to the attention of senior policy-makers
around the world. Crisis Group is chaired by former U.S.
Undersecretary of State and Ambassador Thomas Pickering.
Its President and Chief Executive since July 2009 has been
Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights and Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda.
Crisis Group’s international headquarters is in Brussels, and
the organisation has offices or representation in 34 locations:
Abuja, Bangkok, Beijing, Beirut, Bishkek, Bogotá, Bujumbura, Cairo, Dakar, Damascus, Dubai, Gaza, Guatemala
City, Islamabad, Istanbul, Jakarta, Jerusalem, Johannesburg,
Kabul, Kathmandu, London, Moscow, Nairobi, New York,
Port-au-Prince, Pristina, Rabat, Sanaa, Sarajevo, Seoul, Tbilisi,
Tripoli, Tunis and Washington DC. Crisis Group currently
covers some 70 areas of actual or potential conflict across four
continents. In Africa, this includes, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Sierra
Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe; in Asia, Afghanistan, Burma/Myanmar, Indonesia, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Nepal, North Korea,
Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan,
Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; in
Europe, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, Macedonia, North Caucasus, Serbia
and Turkey; in the Middle East and North Africa, Algeria,
Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon,
Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Western Sahara and Yemen;
and in Latin America and the Caribbean, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti and Venezuela.
Crisis Group receives financial support from a wide range of
governments, institutional foundations, and private sources.
The following governmental departments and agencies have
provided funding in recent years: Australian Agency for International Development, Australian Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, Austrian Development Agency, Belgian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Canadian International Development Agency, Canadian International Development and
Research Centre, Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Canada, Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dutch
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Commission, Finnish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, German Federal Foreign Office,
Irish Aid, Principality of Liechtenstein, Luxembourg Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New Zealand Agency for International Development, Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Swedish International Development Agency, Swedish
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Swiss Federal Department of
Foreign Affairs, Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, United
Kingdom Department for International Development, U.S.
Agency for International Development.
The following institutional and private foundations have provided funding in recent years: Adessium Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Charitable Foundation, The
Elders Foundation, Henry Luce Foundation, William & Flora
Hewlett Foundation, Humanity United, Hunt Alternatives
Fund, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Open
Society Institute, Ploughshares Fund, Rockefeller Brothers
Fund and VIVA Trust.
June 2012
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
APPENDIX C
CRISIS GROUP REPORTS AND BRIEFINGS ON LATIN AMERICA AND
THE CARIBBEAN SINCE 2009
Haiti 2009: Stability at Risk, Latin
America/Caribbean Briefing N°19,
3 March 2009.
Ending Colombia’s FARC Conflict:
Dealing the Right Card, Latin America
Report N°30, 26 March 2009 (also
available in Spanish).
Haiti: Saving the Environment, Preventing
Instability and Conflict, Latin America/
Caribbean Briefing N°20, 28 April 2009.
The Virtuous Twins: Protecting Human
Rights and Improving Security in Colombia, Latin America Briefing N°21, 25
May 2009 (also available in Spanish).
Venezuela: Accelerating the Bolivarian
Revolution, Latin America Briefing
N°22, 5 November 2009 (also available
in Spanish).
Uribe’s Possible Third Term and Conflict
Resolution in Colombia, Latin America
Report N°31, 18 December 2009 (also
available in Spanish).
Haiti: Stabilisation and Reconstruction
after the Quake, Latin America/
Caribbean Report N°32, 31 March 2010.
Guatemala: Squeezed Between Crime and
Impunity, Latin America Report N°33,
22 June 2010 (also available in Spanish).
Improving Security Policy in Colombia,
Latin America Briefing N°23, 29 June
2010 (also available in Spanish).
Colombia: President Santos’s Conflict
Resolution Opportunity, Latin America
Report N°34, 13 October 2010 (also
available in Spanish).
Haiti: The Stakes of the Post-Quake
Elections, Latin America/Caribbean
Report N°35, 27 October 2010.
Learning to Walk without a Crutch: The
International Commission Against
Impunity in Guatemala, Latin America
Report N°36, 31 May 2011 (also
available in Spanish).
Guatemala’s Elections: Clean Polls, Dirty
Politics, Latin America Briefing N°24,
17 June 2011 (also available in Spanish).
Post-quake Haiti: Security Depends on
Resettlement and Development, Latin
America Briefing N°25, 28 June 2011.
Cutting the Links Between Crime and Local
Politics: Colombia’s 2011 Elections,
Latin America Report N°37, 25 July
2011 (also available in Spanish).
Violence and Politics in Venezuela, Latin
America Report N°38, 17 August 2011
(also available in Spanish).
Keeping Haiti Safe: Police Reform, Latin
America/Caribbean Briefing N°26, 8
September 2011 (also available in
French and Spanish).
Guatemala: Drug Trafficking and Violence,
Latin America Report N°39, 11 October
2011 (also available in Spanish).
Keeping Haiti Safe: Justice Reform, Latin
America/Caribbean Briefing N°27, 27
October 2011 (also available in French).
Moving Beyond Easy Wins: Colombia’s
Borders, Latin America Report N°40, 31
October 2011 (also available in
Spanish).
Dismantling Colombia’s New Illegal
Armed Groups: Lessons from a
Surrender, Latin America Report N°41,
8 June 2012.
Page 28
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
Page 29
APPENDIX D
INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP BOARD OF TRUSTEES
CHAIR
Wesley Clark
Lalit Mansingh
Thomas R Pickering
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe
Former Foreign Secretary of India, Ambassador
to the U.S. and High Commissioner to the UK
Sheila Coronel
Jessica Tuchman Mathews
PRESIDENT & CEO
Toni Stabile, Professor of Practice in Investigative
Journalism; Director, Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism, Columbia University, U.S.
President, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, U.S.
Louise Arbour
Uffe Ellemann-Jensen
Former President of Tanzania
Former UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights and Chief Prosecutor for the International
Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda
Former Foreign Minister of Denmark
Former U.S. Undersecretary of State; Ambassador
to the UN, Russia, India, Israel, Jordan, El Salvador
and Nigeria
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Morton Abramowitz
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
and Ambassador to Turkey
Cheryl Carolus
Former South African High Commissioner to
the UK and Secretary General of the ANC
Maria Livanos Cattaui
Former Secretary-General of the International
Chamber of Commerce
Yoichi Funabashi
Former Editor in Chief, The Asahi Shimbun,
Japan
Frank Giustra
President & CEO, Fiore Capital
Ghassan Salamé
Dean, Paris School of International Affairs,
Sciences Po
Gareth Evans
Senior Associate, International Economics
Program, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace; Former Editor in Chief, Foreign Policy
Mark Eyskens
Ayo Obe
Former Prime Minister of Belgium
Legal Practitioner, Lagos, Nigeria
Joshua Fink
Paul Reynolds
CEO & Chief Investment Officer, Enso Capital
Management LLC
President & Chief Executive Officer, Canaccord
Financial Inc.; Vice Chair, Global Head of
Canaccord Genuity
Joschka Fischer
Former Foreign Minister of Germany
Jean-Marie Guéhenno
Arnold Saltzman Professor of War and Peace
Studies, Columbia University; Former UN UnderSecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations
Carla Hills
Former U.S. Secretary of Housing and U.S.
Trade Representative
Lena Hjelm-Wallén
Former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign
Minister of Sweden
Swanee Hunt
Chairman, Open Society Institute
Pär Stenbäck
Mo Ibrahim
Former Foreign Minister of Finland
Founder and Chair, Mo Ibrahim Foundation;
Founder, Celtel International
OTHER BOARD MEMBERS
Igor Ivanov
Adnan Abu-Odeh
Former Foreign Minister of the Russian
Federation
Former Political Adviser to King Abdullah II
and to King Hussein, and Jordan Permanent
Representative to the UN
Kenneth Adelman
Former U.S. Ambassador and Director of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Nahum Barnea
Chief Columnist for Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel
Samuel Berger
Chair, Albright Stonebridge Group LLC; Former
U.S. National Security Adviser
Emma Bonino
Vice President of the Italian Senate; Former
Minister of International Trade and European
Affairs of Italy and European Commissioner
for Humanitarian Aid
Moisés Naím
President Emeritus of Crisis Group; Former
Foreign Minister of Australia
Former U.S. Ambassador to Austria;
Chair, Institute for Inclusive Security; President,
Hunt Alternatives Fund
George Soros
Benjamin Mkapa
Asma Jahangir
President of the Supreme Court Bar Association
of Pakistan, Former UN Special Rapporteur on
the Freedom of Religion or Belief
Wim Kok
Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands
Ricardo Lagos
Former President of Chile
Joanne Leedom-Ackerman
Former International Secretary of International
PEN; Novelist and journalist, U.S.
Lord (Mark) Malloch-Brown
Former Administrator of the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and UN
Deputy Secretary-General
Güler Sabancı
Chairperson, Sabancı Holding, Turkey
Javier Solana
Former EU High Representative for the Common
Foreign and Security Policy, NATO SecretaryGeneral and Foreign Minister of Spain
Lawrence Summers
Former Director of the US National Economic
Council and Secretary of the US Treasury;
President Emeritus of Harvard University
Dangerous Uncertainty ahead of Venezuela’s Elections
Crisis Group Latin America Report N°42, 26 June 2012
Page 30
PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL
A distinguished group of individual and corporate donors providing essential support and expertise to Crisis Group.
Mala Gaonkar
George Landegger
Ian Telfer
Frank Holmes
Ford Nicholson & Lisa Wolverton
White & Case LLP
Steve Killelea
Harry Pokrandt
Neil Woodyer
INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Individual and corporate supporters who play a key role in Crisis Group’s efforts to prevent deadly conflict.
APCO Worldwide Inc.
Seth & Jane Ginns
McKinsey & Company
Belinda Stronach
Ed Bachrach
Rita E. Hauser
Harriet Mouchly-Weiss
Talisman Energy
Stanley Bergman & Edward
Bergman
Sir Joseph Hotung
Näringslivets
Internationella Råd (NIR)
– International Council of
Swedish Industry
Tilleke & Gibbins
Griff Norquist
Yapı Merkezi Construction
and Industry Inc.
Harry Bookey & Pamela
Bass-Bookey
BP
Chevron
Neil & Sandra DeFeo Family
Foundation
Equinox Partners
Fares I. Fares
Neemat Frem
Iara Lee & George Gund III
Foundation
George Kellner
Amed Khan
Faisel Khan
Ana Luisa Ponti & Geoffrey
R. Hoguet
Zelmira Koch Polk
Kerry Propper
Elliott Kulick
Michael L. Riordan
Liquidnet
Shell
Jean Manas & Rebecca
Haile
Statoil
Kevin Torudag
VIVA Trust
Stelios S. Zavvos
SENIOR ADVISERS
Former Board Members who maintain an association with Crisis Group, and whose advice and support are called on (to the
extent consistent with any other office they may be holding at the time).
Martti Ahtisaari
Mong Joon Chung
Timothy Ong
Grigory Yavlinski
Chairman Emeritus
Pat Cox
Olara Otunnu
Uta Zapf
George Mitchell
Gianfranco Dell’Alba
Lord (Christopher) Patten
Ernesto Zedillo
Jacques Delors
Shimon Peres
Alain Destexhe
Victor Pinchuk
Mou-Shih Ding
Surin Pitsuwan
Gernot Erler
Cyril Ramaphosa
Marika Fahlén
Fidel V. Ramos
Stanley Fischer
George Robertson
Malcolm Fraser
Michel Rocard
I.K. Gujral
Volker Rüehe
Max Jakobson
Mohamed Sahnoun
James V. Kimsey
Salim A. Salim
Aleksander Kwasniewski
Douglas Schoen
Todung Mulya Lubis
Christian Schwarz-Schilling
Allan J. MacEachen
Michael Sohlman
Graça Machel
Thorvald Stoltenberg
Nobuo Matsunaga
Leo Tindemans
Barbara McDougall
Ed van Thijn
Matthew McHugh
Simone Veil
Miklós Németh
Shirley Williams
Chairman Emeritus
HRH Prince Turki al-Faisal
Hushang Ansary
Óscar Arias
Ersin Arıoğlu
Richard Armitage
Diego Arria
Zainab Bangura
Shlomo Ben-Ami
Christoph Bertram
Alan Blinken
Lakhdar Brahimi
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Kim Campbell
Jorge Castañeda
Naresh Chandra
Eugene Chien
Joaquim Alberto Chissano
Victor Chu
Christine Ockrent